Re: What's in a phrase?
We really need a Hidden Wiki that doesn't involve criminal activities.
365 posts • joined 11 Jun 2019
Taiwan used to hold the Chinese seat on the UN Security Council. Sadly, our politicians decided they wanted to invest in China (export manufacturing jobs due to reduced labor costs) and that was the end of that. Everything around and about China has involved stabs in the backs of the populace. This is going to end very ugly.
Nailed it, and I agree. Hopefully, if the ruling goes against Apple, then we will see the walled gardens for the game consoles get torn down as well. Not that I game at all, just a moderator on a gaming platform and I sympathize with the "owners" of these consoles.
We don't tolerate computers being this locked into a walled garden. It is, however, becoming readily apparent that many manufacturers put a ton of skull-sweat figuring out how to extract rents after you have already purchased the item. Intolerable and I will never purchase any device that is designed to function in this manner.
Never before in human history has an individual, or small group of such, been able to destroy wealth on such an unimaginable scale. Hacking, ransomware, explosives, even crashing airplanes into buildings. So, of course the state wishes to conduct dragnet surveillance! We, each and every one of is a potential threat to the existing order.
As research at such fine places as MIT has proven, time and again, anonymization or psuedo-anonymization as the NHS is stating, when combined with other publicly available datasets is easy to reverse, so any guarantee is less than worthless. It's malicious..
Having spent decades in AI/ML and worked with these datasets on the left side of the pond, I fully expect that the results from the private companies aren't going to be effective. There's a whole branch of mathematics that need to be drawn on, which no researcher has used to date save myself, to come up with working models with better than .99 accuracy required in a medical context. Still, I'll be waiting with bated breath to see what garbage results they achieve. IBM, for one, has form here, not just Big Pharma.
No, I think Danny Boyd has the right of it in terms of engineering concept. Windows treats multiple displays as one extra wide display. Here rather than having the OS treat the twin screens as an extra wide screen, have the OS treat the two screens as one above the other for the UI. It's not that hard to have two or more touch-screens although I have no idea how Windows (probably barf) would react to each of them together. You'd have the on-screen keyboard always defaulting to the bottom screen. I'm just surprised that the lot at Microsoft are having to strain so hard here.
I'm beginning to think that there are some serious hard-coded choices in the UI software architecture inside Windows that are blocking what should be something rather easy to do if Window's internals weren't so brittle. I've never gone that deep in the UI as it's not something I need here. Brute force display defaults have always been good enough.
Quite a bit of the funding, as has been documented elsewhere, did incorporate funding from the US NIH, The French were also involved at one point. Likely others. It wasn't just PRC funding. Gain of Function (GoF) research is controversial, shut down in the US in 2015, but is still conducted in various parts of the world. Funding and where the research is conducted are often two different things.
NB: I've been off in the epidemiological world for a while and still keep track. That's where I've been doing quite a bit of AI/ML. First with MARSA.
Without the datasets, duplication and incorporation into other research (meta-analysis) is usually impossible and as has already been pointed out in AI/ML, a hinderance to progress in the field. I've been in AI/ML for the last 45 years and it's maddening. As we progress further, other fields over the decades have found it a pain point as well.
Personally, if it's publicly funded research in any amount, it should be fully open and be damned to corporates. I've always shared all my data, despite nearly ever project being privately funded by myself. Then again, I'm off in the nonlinear/non-parametric section of the field where it seems pretty much no one has an interest.
That's precisely the problem with any approach that tags people with group identifiers and research conducted by MIT and other institutions prove time and again that it doesn't take much to reidentify people.
So Google and others that tink they can prevent this are living in a fantasy world, or more accurately projecting a narrative that the problem is solved when it's unsolvable.
Missing a point here when it comes to many of the use cases mentioned have a factor called reproducibility tied to them. Whether it's nuclear weapons simulations or anything to do with sciences and medicine, no updates are allowed either during or between runs of the software. That's why there's been a hard push for both code and the datasets, along with which updates were in place, for all research these days. Without it, you aren't doing science.
I have the same issue in AI/ML as with my engineering projects which is why I'm quite meticulous about my configurations. Stability and reproducibility are absolute. For this, Centos Stream is right out. [And yes, none of these machines are connected to anything except each other on an isolated network due to non-existent security patches.]
Yeah, not exactly the brightest of ideas, even though it would work, that's certain, and it would definitely reduce the number of nukes kept around, which is another positive. For real world applications, I'd suggest something along the lines of a high temperature reactor with something like asteroid or lunar soil as the reaction mass. This isn't a new idea, Bob Heinlein proposed it in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for a lunar tug. That way you aren't having to deal with lifting mass from earth.
Another side thought is using captured orbital debris but that probably involve negative returns aside from clearing orbital space.
I follow the research in battery, nuclear and renewable energy technologies quite closely and it is not a lack of funds for research that is a problem. University and private labs are turning out new technology on a near daily basis, sometimes multiple research reports per day. It's trying to figure out which technologies have the best ROI in commercial use that's the problem. Tossing more money at it won't speed up progress, IMNSHO.
What's really fascinating is that there are cross-over projects between these technologies and other fields, heat transfer in chips for instance, that are working their way through the process as well. Bless the researchers as they are charging forward each and every day.
I've been segregating my older systems from the outside world since Meltdown/Specter popped up and where the fix was worse than the disease in terms of performance. Looking at this list, and the fact that I still have working systems on the list mentioned in the article, it's time to archive functional distributions for those machines.
Time to move on for Linux, yes, but keep an archived history around, too.
Spending large amounts of cash to advertise their product or service means there is less money that goes into the product or service, which implies that the return to the consumer for their cash is less than a comparable product or service. Basically fancy way of saying paying a premium for the highly advertised.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021