That's just your partisan opinion. They all make things worse in their own way. At the local level, they may not even be in a party. It doesn't change the problem.
You're also very naive if you think "either party" are without corruption.
230 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Jul 2019
All the jokes that those of you across the pond like to make about our guns/politics/culture/everything, these situations are going to get worse. Our politicians are corrupt at all levels. It doesn't matter who you look at or what level of service they hold. They are all bought and sold by corporations. When people run out of options to have an effect on the things that impact their lives, they are going to resort to violence. It doesn't make it right but it doesn't mean that we can joke our way out of it.
AI investment and job loss will make this get worse.
Great story but not a new problem. If a corporation is letting their fleet auto update then I guess they are getting what they asked for. Standard practice for the fleet where I work is to do a reboot prior to patching to avoid just this problem. Should it be necessary? Probably not. Is it a fact of life with Windows? Absolutely.
It always seems like we're at this war. We deem company A as evil. The platforms that want to gain ground then have to try and figure out if they want to alienate the subset of users that believe company A is evil versus everyone else that they just want to attract to the platform. Dropping features in the "everyone else" group doesn't lead to gaining ground and the subset users don't really help either. It doesn't change the perception of company A either way. In the end, not supporting a company that the general belief is negative hurts everyone in the long run.
It's a long way of saying, try to maintain support and let the users figure out if it's valuable.
It's always funny how the partisans see an enemy at every turn.
Again, the voter ID point was made purely because the party supporting this kind of law opposes that kind of law not on constitutional grounds but because it would "disenfranchise the under privileged". The irony is multiple. One key point is the the under privileged are effectively disenfranchised in our society of laws if they can't obey those laws already because they are under privileged (apparently). Basically, they are willing to take away the rights of the so-called privileged as long as it does seem to cost anything as is the case here. Giving up your privacy and other constitutional rights does cost something.
If it makes you feel better, the party that claims to be all about our so-called freedom is more than willing to intrude on that freedom with illegal monitoring, financial misconduct, misuse of government powers, etc. Sadly, they aren't unique either.
So, go find your partisan arguments elsewhere. They are all criminals and just open your eyes and see it. Neither has your best interest at heart.
I said it another thread and I'll say it again here. It's total hypocrisy. This law is originated from a Democrat and not a Republican. I'm only pointing this out because it's not just a "one side" situation. Both of our parties in this two-party system are corrupt and not out for our best interests. They just go about stomping with different methods. In the mean time, this is the same state that would argue that you shouldn't need a valid ID to vote and that right has clear requirements on it that are easily enforceable if ID is required. Nobody has to invade your personal, private life privacy. That same ID is required to drive a car and to perform many, many other functions in our society but they say that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to have a valid ID to vote. I'm not here to trumpet (pun intended) that we must require an ID for voting. I'm just stating that it's total hypocrisy to try and implement a system like this when they group behind this particular stupidity already makes excuses as to why having a valid, proof of ID is such a big problem for much of our country.
Again, don't focus on the example of voter ID. Focus on the stupidity of this kind of law.
The irony here is that System76 appears to be squashing users who question them caving to California over on Reddit.
Another irony is the same people (apparently) that don't want voter ID are pushing (essentially) for digital ID. So, voting shouldn't be under the same level of scrutiny as looking as "improper" content on the internet?
This is par for the course in the current "civilized" world. Bad guys do bad things and don't follow rules. Good guys don't really do bad things but maybe things happen but they still follow the rules. Authority implements more restrictive rules. Good guys get (un)intentionally punished. Bad guys don't follow rules and figure out new ways to break new rules. Good guys continue to suffer. Authority doesn't fix problem but uses new found control to make life harder for good guys. Nobody wins but bad guys and authority. It starts looking like bad guys and authority are both just bad guys.
Pick your cause/problem.
This is not a complicated problem to understand. Some of the basic threads.
- LLM training is dependent on pre-existing knowledge. No people, no new knowledge.
- As people retire and are replaced with AI, this means, again, no new knowledge. No new knowledge means that you are creating a knowledge ceiling.
- AI isn't "actual intelligence". It's an output of known data that can handle the imprecise input of human beings. It's only as good as both the input and the output.
If it gets implemented as another productivity tool then it has a realistic future. Otherwise, it's just a plan to fail.
One of the more clever GenZ statements came from my daughter. She said "I don't worry about remembering passwords. When I need to login, I just do the "Forgot my password" choice every time and just set it to something super complex so that I just do that every time I log in." I'm not so sure this is the best security but it's a clever perspective. :D
The beauty of it is that you're reading words the EVERYONE wrote. No matter how idiotic, mundane, whatever-favorite-descriptor-is, AI is trained on the best/worst of the internet. It all reminds me of being a kid and imagining how awesome it would be to mix all of the flavors of soda/pop/soda-pop together and how amazing it would taste. I'm sure you can imagine that the result wouldn't be best of the sum total of the parts.
I won't disagree with you about the UK. This story isn't about the UK. It's about the USA.
In the USA, as you've noted here, fundamentally, you're not going to just start generating power and selling it. However, existing power companies are so intertwined with our government that statements that their commercial/industrial customers will pay for what they consume is disingenuous at best. Their rates are negotiated and state governments allow all kinds of shenanigans when it comes to what consumers end up paying. This has literally already happened and is currently happening. So, Cheetoh Cotton Head is saying more stupid stuff. Making statements like he is here is just BS.
I'm conservative-minded and constitutionally oriented but none of the politics/politicians of any flavor meet my needs because they are all corrupt and they are all corrupt at every level. Money and power talk. It doesn't matter which party you claim.
Typical BS. This is why the US is so upside down with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Sure, their power bill is theirs. However, all power companies operate just like any other business and give bulk discounts to high consumers rather than the other way around. This basically means that everyone else sees an increase because there isn't enough infrastructure to support the increased consumption. (I worked at one of the power companies and this is exactly how it works) The only potential safety valve for all of this is each state's public utility controls. Unfortunately, each state operates differently and some are more friendly to the power companies than others. Guess where all the new datacenters will get built?
The whole effing world is corrupt.
Well, assuming you aren't kidding.
99.9% = Three 9s of availability which means ~8 hours, 46 minutes of down time annually (this is terrible)
99.99% = Four 9's of availability which means ~53 minutes of down time annually
99.999% = Five 9's of availability which means ~5.3 minutes of down time annually (this is the gold standard)
No one is going to give you one or two 9's of availability as an SLA.
So, if I'm reading what you're saying correctly, you're saying that labor and materials should not be protected/compensated in any way? I'm not so much talking about software but the fact that you mentioned water and air. Everything should be free?*
*Yes, these corporations and their lawyers are evil. Agreed on that point.
Enterprise users are where they generally always are. Leadership wants the newest shiny object. They have heard all the hype that it's the next greatest thing. They want the entire enterprise to adopt it. The same problem always comes up. The enterprise users mostly don't know what to do with it. Leadership isn't clear about what they actually want out of it but will throw money at it until the next cycle of leadership changes and the next shiny thing comes along.
This seems to be what the cycle is/has been for longer than I can remember.
I generally agree with your sentiment. However, don't let yourself be trapped by things that sounds like good intentions when it comes to government. Even funding of seemingly beneficial things for all of society can easily be politicized or even worse. Why find the cure for something when you can continue to get money for R&D and even treatments that don't cure anything? Even things like energy production and farming can sound beneficial on the surface. It's the proven corruption of the system around all of these things that are really the problem. In the end, government should govern. Everything else is scope creep.
It's the gray areas that kill us.
Yeah, I get it. However, that's my entire point. Subsidies are just a socialization of the cost for all of society. In most cases, they create/hide the illusion of a so-called "good idea". In the end, the cost is the cost to do something. Subsidies are just one more thing a government shouldn't be doing in my opinion. Whether we all pay for it directly as consumers or we pay for it as tax paying citizens, the impact has a baseline and only goes up from there. The fact that the current government administration favors one thing over another thing and the next/previous administration prefers the opposite doesn't make either of them right. Our brain-washed, propaganda-driven preferences don't either.
Nobody in their proper mind would be against renewable/diverse energy sources.*
People are generally against subsidizing things that aren't actually cheaper/better/faster through the government just so those subsidies can advance politics of everyone involved. It doesn't what color your party colors are, they are all corrupt. Since we can't seem to filter out the politics, I guess we're stuck with saying government shouldn't be involved.
That being said, if these data centers can get their power without putting even more drain on an already strained system then that's a good thing. If they can do that cheaper than what that strained system can provide, even better. What has been happening is that they are consuming at high rates, negotiating the cost of the consumption which therefore shifts a disproportionate cost to regular people. Fundamentally not much different than subsidies so them getting out of the system entirely via their own renewable products seems like a good thing.
*As long as those sources don't destroy our world or are based in outright lies about their benefits/risks/harm.
Unfortunately, that's not really how it works though. Personal and sensitive data have become core components of how companies do business. Their transition from paper to digital has just exposed it. The internet exposed it further. Asking any of these companies to change at this point is no different than asking people to not share any of their personal information without a set of conditions being met. It turns out companies = people so stupid is as stupid does.
Legislation is an after-the-fact consideration.
Also, compensating the "victims" isn't the intention of any legislation.
Yeah, the system sucks.
While I won't really comment one way or another on the intentions of the "founding fathers" (I wasn't there so I only know what I've read/heard), I don't know that I truly agree with the statement around the 2nd amendment and the militia on the grounds that your characterization means that it's a complete outlier from the rest of the BoR in intent.
Historically (or so I've been told), the ruling governments limited access/rights to things like weaponry to prevent uprisings and to maintain control over the populace. Using that premise, the purpose of the 2nd amendment was a direct reflection of stating that the populace has the foundational rights to defense. This isn't the time/place to expand that argument because I know there are so many people that love to interpret these things according to what they already believe.
I can't argue your points. They are valid. I'm just saying that the federal government is generally way more interested in protecting the country via the so-called 'military industrial complex" because that part doesn't whine and complain about it (as much anyway). When it comes to education/healthcare/welfare, no answer seems to satisfy the citizens of the US.
I find a certain irony in the senator election amendment however. If the citizens of a state elected the government in that state, are we saying that the choices of their elected government need to be directly circumvented because that elected government isn't acting in their interests? (Apparently so but it's still a funny idea if you think about it)
Well, by "here" I meant the readers of this article that are also reading comments.
The UK government may say they believe that but if they actually do anything about it (that's difficult and expensive BTW) remains to be seen. Your nasty feeling is likely reality. It seems to be an unwritten rule that nobody does anything unless they are forced to after it fails.