I've wondered for a while whether it would make sense to split the CPU into a "IOPU" and a "SPU"
- The IOPU would be responsible for directing other hardware on the system. It doesn't need to be very performant.
- The SPU would be optimized for scalar and branch-heavy code that needs to run fast.
The SPU could have minimal security, just enough so it can't read arbitrary memory when fetching from RAM. It would only run one program at a time, so speculation shouldn't be an issue.
At least on my system few programs need a lot of processing power (and even then only intermittently), so little task switching should occur on an SPU.
This precedent definitely won't be abused. Or at least most people here seem to think that?
I wish the article would go into detail what exactly the "transgressive behaviour" is, because now it is unclear to me how far I can take criticism that is either directly or indirectly linked to an individual.
For example, what if I have an extremely poor experience with a seller?
Does it matter if this seller is a business or some random individual getting rid of 2nd hand items?
What if the user being criticized is also anonymous?
In any case, I shall be using throwaway accounts more frequently just to be safe.
> A Facebook user has made anonymous statements in Facebook groups about dating, accusing [the plaintiff], among other things, of having the intention to use and then dump women, of being a pathological liar, and of secretly recording women. Two images of [the claimant] have been placed with these statements. [the claimant] argues that the allegations are untrue and intimidating and that he suffers considerable (reputational) damage. [the claimant] wants Meta to remove what he considers to be unlawful messages. In addition, [the claimant] wants Meta to provide him with information about the identity of the anonymous Facebook user and about any other groups in which this user has made these statements.
I am very glad I get to use open-source software at no cost. There are profiteers, sure, but I believe in the end open-source software will be more beneficial for society as a whole as it is much easier to reuse code.
My suspicion is that Prigozhin got recruited by a Western agency (CIA?) with the intent to destabilize Russia from the inside.
Key here is to discredit the Kremlin, by e.g. exposing or at least making them seem incompetent. Later a coup/revolution is staged to cause internal conflict and make Russia unable to continue the war in Ukraine.
Given how short this "coup" was and how easy Wagner seemed to get off with this stunt I suspect Prigozhin instead informed the Kremlin (or Putin directly) and played along. He would likely get supported during the coup by whoever recruited him. If this is the case those assets are probably arrested by now.
Why would China have plans? China is well on their way to becoming the unrivaled military power of the world in the next couple of decades. All they have to do is wait and let the current trends play out. The only possible way to derail their ascent is a premature war--economic or otherwise--with the west.
I do not think this is necessarily the case. Their population is ageing rapidly, with due consequences for the company between citizens and the CCP. Internal tendons between the rich coastal regions, attracting all the labor, and the hollowed out interior could cause issues.
I don't think their ascendancy is necessity assured.
I mean, barring legitimacy on 2023 doom-and-gloom rhetoric, those who grew up during the Cold War do have this generation beat when it comes to warmongery worries. Problem is, there was not nearly as much domestic disarray back then - and there was still a sense of unity.
> there was not nearly as much domestic disarray back then - and there was still a sense of unity
The more one looks, the less this appears to be true. Malcom X and the Black Panthers didn't arise because things were just peachy. MLK's murder wasn't just a stray bullet. When the Philadelphia Police Department dropped a bomb on their own city, it wasn't just an accident. When the National Guard massacred a defenseless crowd of students in Ohio, it wasn't because twenty-eight trigger fingers slipped simultaneously. All while McCarthyism ran rampant, dividing Americans into Faithful Patriots and Godless Communists, pitting neighbor against neighbor in a nationalistic furor gleefully fed by the upper echelons of government, media, and industry.
I ain't trying to say things are going well these days, but let's not forget how shitty the past was.
You seem to be addressing a related but separate matter, namely boycotting products to influence companies. The topic in hand is companies pretending to be large numbers of anonymous people. This is what would be prevented if submissions to public consultations were tied to real-world identities.
I think this is a miscommunication. You interpret nine_k's phrase "putting your money where your mouth is" as meaning "buying only from companies you support", but I think nine_k actually meant "having public comments require payment".
I find it fascinating that people defend censoring "misinformation" because people (supposedly) cannot discern it from "real" information.
If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all?
> If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all?
I'm afraid that people are looking around, asking themselves that same question, and concluding that democracy has failed.
The problem is that democracy depends on an educated populace and there have been active efforts to dumb people down so that they can be more easily lied to and manipulated. The American people, on average, have the math skills of a 6th grader and their reading skills are worse (https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/02/us-literacy-rate/). They lack the critical thinking skills to compete with sophisticated disinformation campaigns. The solution requires education, training, and time. Until the population catches up, we're going to continue to see some very bad choices made by voters while scammers and charlatans will continue to be very successful.
I don't blame people for losing some faith in the American people, but I hope we don't lose faith in democracy because clawing it back after we've given up what few freedoms we still have will not be easy. As long as we have democracy we can still make things better.
> I find it fascinating that people defend censoring "misinformation" because people (supposedly) cannot discern it from "real" information. If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all?
In the early 2010s there was a rash of "pranks" in India where people would forward accusations accusing men pictured with children of pedophilia to rile up mobs to assault and kill them. These accusations were basically always false and done to settle scores, basically as a form of stochastic murder. It was bad enough that WhatsApp had to introduce some UX patterns to slow down forwards of accusations and put warning disclaimers on things forwarded too often. (And I'm sure there were other measures around moderation put in on the back end, including collaboration with state law enforcement entities).
Democracy generally operates through a series of institutions that are held accountable to the public, but doesn't directly fly according to every passing whim of the public.
Short, glib comments get dunked on here, but you've got a point. As the saying goes, “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” The judgement of the common folk is not unassailable, and is frequently wrong, which is why Democracy needs numerous checks and balances.
Democracy is a hedge against worse outcomes, not a guarantor of future outcomes. You might get your heart’s desires in the service of a King, but he’ll still be King and you’ll now be his subject.
> If we cannot trust the judgement of the common folk, why have a democracy at all?
The fact that people are irrational is why we do not have a direct democracy. Representative democracy, and the existence of constraints in the form of constitution-type documents and term limits, are designed to limit the impact of temporal individual stupidity and crowd stupidity on global outcomes, by constraining the scope of immediate democracy.
> people defend censoring "misinformation" because people (supposedly) cannot discern it from "real" information.
This is overly flippant and strawman-like (conflating government censorship with private company moderation, for example) to what is a massive problem in the age of social media. Vaccine hesitancy, leading to hundreds of thousands of additional dead people, is due to misinformation. There are literal dead people as the end result of this misinformation. Now I for one would prefer that private companies do not censor misinformation, and instead focused on altering the viral dynamics. But this is not a topic to brush under the rug with denialism that misinformation is an actual thing.
- The IOPU would be responsible for directing other hardware on the system. It doesn't need to be very performant.
- The SPU would be optimized for scalar and branch-heavy code that needs to run fast.
The SPU could have minimal security, just enough so it can't read arbitrary memory when fetching from RAM. It would only run one program at a time, so speculation shouldn't be an issue.
At least on my system few programs need a lot of processing power (and even then only intermittently), so little task switching should occur on an SPU.