You are addressing the wrong problem. You’re focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.

Fighting hate speech rather than hatred itself only strengthens the hatred. As soon as you say “you mustn’t say that” you validate the hatred and give it power. Look at any counterculture, positive or negative. Trying to suppress it only validates it, gives it legitimacy as being important enough for the establishment to want to suppress, and if the people who might support the hatred already don’t like the people who would suppress the hate speech, you’ve just poured fuel on the fire.

The problem to be fixed isn’t hate speech, it’s hatred. It’s a tougher problem to solve, but a much more important one that you will actually get a productive effect by solving it.

That I would actually very much agree with. As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.

This is also why I think engagement algorithms are a cancer on our civilization. If it is in a platforms monetary interest to amplify the most vile anger inducing stuff, be that stuff that is actively bad like hate speech or simply divisive like a lot of political crap, that is bad for our society. It pushes us farther apart when we should be coming together to fix the problems that we can agree on.

You don’t have to be a porn star or even a porn consumer to oppose laws banning porn.

And you don’t have to be a shitbag to recognize that, while well-intentioned, censorship is still censorship.

I have absolutely no love whatsoever for the people who would spread such crap. I would love to get rid of it. But banning the speech doesn’t do that. It’s like smashing the altimeter in the airplane and then declaring that you’re not crashing anymore. But the reality is, smashing instruments in the airplane is never a great idea whether you are crashing or not. It just prevents you from seeing things you don’t want to. And you get hurt in the process.

Censorship, historically, has never ended up anywhere good.

Absolutely fuck spez.

But he’s right here. Just because he’s a fuckstick doesn’t mean he’s always wrong on every issue 100% of the time.

Various forms of censorship under the flag of ‘online safety’ have been pushed by governments since the internet began to exist. And before that with print media and television. Censorship is not the answer. Never was. First it was for porn, then it was for video games, then it was for hate speech, it’s always something.

But in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard,

“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”

Censorship must be opposed.

No it’s actually pretty simple. No containers. Your passkeys can be managed in the browser (Google Passwords), by a plug-in like BitWarden, or in a third party hardware device like YubiKey.

And, with respect, this view is more naive (IMHO) because it’s focused by size of company, and you can’t do that. You can’t have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

So if Google has to pay to link to IA, then so does DuckDuckGo and any other small upstart search engine that might want to make a ‘wayback machine this site!’ button.

Google unquestionably gets value from the sites they link to. But if that value must be paid, then every other search engine has to pay it also, including little ones like DDG. That basically kills search engines as a concept, because they simply can’t work on that model.

Thus I think your view is more naive, because you’re just trying to stick it to Google rather than considering the full range of effects your policy would have.

Strong disagree. If I make a website people like, and Google links to it, should Google have to pay me? If so, Google basically can’t exist. The record keeping of tracking every single little website that they owe money to or have to negotiate deals with would be untenable. And what happens if a large tech journal like CNET or ZDNet Links to the website of a company they are writing an article about? Do they have to pay for that? Is the payment assumed by publicity? Is it different if they link to a deep page versus the front page?

What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

I will absolutely give you that what Google is doing is shitty. If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load. But I think that ‘should’ falls in line with being a good internet citizen treating a non-profit fairly, not part of any actual requirement.

I had not realized that. They should absolutely be allowed to do it, but it’s super shitty of them to basically offload that cost onto IA. IA of course would be well within their rights to try and monetize it. Look at incoming traffic that deep links a cached page and has a Google.com referrer, and throw a splash page or top banner asking for donation.

I don’t agree. Free linking has always been a vitally important part of the open internet. The principle that if I make something available on a specific URL, others can access it, and I don’t get to charge others for linking to a public URL is one of the core concepts of the internet itself.

That’s a very good point. Things like chat GPT can accelerate the process of doing something that takes time but a human knows when it’s done correctly. But in anything where finding truth is the goal, it shouldn’t be trusted yet.

deleted by creator

Most of this AI stuff is trash. I think Google AI has maybe once given me a useful answer. Amazon has this thing called Rufus that just slows down the process of searching customer reviews. Just like Google, it’s maybe once or twice given me useful information and none of it worth the wait that it takes for the search results to come up.

But we are pouring billions into it and increasing our data center power usage by 10x because It’s The Future …

This 100%. Wi-Fi Alliance did it right ditching the standard names like 802.11ac and 802.11ax and going to simple names like Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6. Everyone knows 6 is better than 5 so there’s no confusion.

USB-IF needs to do the same thing, and also stand up a little bit to the manufacturers who want to build the cheapest possible products. Set a couple of certification levels. Like level 3 cable supports 30 w and 480 Mbps USB 2.0, level 4 cable supports 100w and 2 gbps, level 5 cable supports 100w and 10gbps, level 6 cable supports 240w and 20gbps etc We don’t need infinite variations of power and data capability. It just confuses customers. But customers will understand a level 5 cable is better than a level 4 cable. And if the device says you need a level 5 cable for full capability, they will understand a level 4 cable isn’t good enough.

You nailed it. look at their more recent announcements about execs not taking bonuses— they’re giving up bonuses for the coming year. I expect most of them to ‘pursue other interests’ but they’ll keep their bonuses, whatever team gets brought in to right the ship will then get screwed.

Might also be ass covering- with a pre-emptive promise of no bonuses it may be harder to replace them…

the end of Moores law

It’s been talked about a lot. Lots of people have predicted it.
It does eventually have to end though. And I think even if this isn’t the end, we’re close to the end. At the very least, we’re close to the point of diminishing returns.

Look at the road to here-- We got to the smallest features the wavelength of light could produce (and people said Moore’s Law was dead), so we used funky multilayer masks to make things smaller and Moore lived on. Then we hit the limits of masking and again people said Moore’s Law was dead, so ASML created a whole new kind of light with a narrower wavelength (EUV) and Moore lived on.

But there is a very hard limit that we won’t work around without a serious rethink of how we build chips- the width of the silicon atom. Today’s chips have pathways that are in many cases well under 100 atoms wide. Companies like ASML and TSMC are pulling out all the stops to make things smaller, but we’re getting close to the limit of what’s possible with the current concepts of chip production (using photolithography to etch transistors onto silicon wafers). Not possible like can we do it, but possible like what the laws of physics will let us do.

That’s going to be an interesting change for the industry, it will mean slower growth in processing power. That won’t be a problem for the desktop market as most people only use a fraction of their CPU’s power. It will mean the end of the ‘more efficient chip every year’ improvement for cell phones and mobile devices though.

There will be of course customers calling for more bigger better, and I think that will be served by more and bigger. Chiplets will become more common, complete with higher TDP. That’ll help squeeze more yield out of an expensive wafer as the discarded parts will contain fewer mm^2. Wouldn’t be surprised to see watercooling become more common in high performance workstations, and I expect we’ll start to see more interest in centralized watercooling in the server markets. The most efficient setup I’ve seen so far basically hangs server mainboards on hooks and dunks them in a pool of non-conductive liquid. That might even lead to a rethink of the typical vertical rack setup to something horizontal.

It’s gonna be an interesting next few years…

Absolutely 100% this. Or at the very least, have all schematics and software source code and other such things placed in escrow so if the company refuses to support them there is some kind of option. This goes double for anything implanted.

So you’re left with departments full of clock punchers who don’t have vision or leadership. If you want to kill your Golden Goose, that’s a good way to do it. The remaining departments full of drone followers aren’t going to be making you the exciting groundbreaking products that make you money.

Of course then again I personally see value in employees, maybe business leadership does not or thinks they are all generic replaceable.

No, but it will bring into question the process by which they were acquired to begin with. Somebody will ask, why did you spend x billion on real estate when it was obvious that remote work was the future? Or if they are locked into a long-term lease, eventually the question will come up why are we spending all this money for office space we aren’t using? Shouldn’t we have thought of this earlier? Not having workers in the office makes it obvious that real estate was a bad investment, and many of these companies are pretty heavily invested in real estate. Easier to screw the workers with what can be explained away as a management strategy than admit a wasted a whole bunch of money buying and building and renovating space you don’t need.

That and executive ass covering, a way to avoid admitting to shareholders that they wasted their money on useless commercial real estate.

It’s also shooting themselves in the foot. The first people to leave aren’t going to be the clock punchers, it will be the best and brightest who can easily find other jobs.