No one goes around and says any of their biases out aloud. That doesn't mean they aren't biased. That's fundamentally the point here - the things not said.
How does one ascertain that which is not said?
Trump is the only one that has even made an attempt to purge those criminals!
Trump's band of merry thugs attacked hundreds of police officers, injuring 140. Officers lost eyes, suffered brain damage, four officers would later go on to commit suicide and a woman was shot to death.
Trump's response was to declare it a "day of love". He proceeded to pardon every last one of the criminal motherfuckers who attacked all of those police officers. Yet here you are blindly cheerleading for a lawless animal superficially resembling an orange clown. You are a piece of shit.
Just work for and do whatever those who are willing to pay your salary say. This is what most Defcon attendees do now anyway.
Consumers have never asked for nor dictated features which were developed for them. EVER. In any industry. Your power as a consumer to dictate product development policy ends with your ability to open and close your wallet.
This statement is absurd on its face. If you want to shill for MS find a way to do it without making yourself look like a crazy person in the process.
This is what is known as a frivolous suit. Microsoft have always maintained a lifecycle list for all it's products, Windows 10 included. There's a whole section of their website dedicated to it where you can search by specific product version
Can toaster manufacturers whose defective products burn down peoples homes play the same game? Publish a lifecycle list and absolve yourself of all liability... the ultimate one weird trick.
Consumers voluntarily using a 10 year old product should place no requirement for support on a vendor. We have no legal basis or comparable requirement for any product be supported for over this length of time, and the lifecycle time for the OS has been known for a really really long time.
This is not about support but rather product safety. Physical products are recalled all the time on the vendors dime even after decades have passed. In the real world these vendors incur actual costs to physically replace and ship replacements for those affected by unsafe products. Here Microsoft apparently thinks it does not have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If defects in your products place people at unsafe risk of harm you own the legal consequences of your failures especially if you fail to take steps necessary to mitigate those harms.
Would AI companies intentionally weaponize their models to maximize profit via social engineering of end users?
Other than servers and high end workstations, there's also absolutely no need for even pcie5 yet. The most powerful gpus barely need pcie4 still, and ssds are about 100M/s for 4k transfer speeds, the most important metric for 99% of users other than marketing wank.
It would be useful if the technology ever isn't absurdly cost prohibitive. Some uses off the top of my head:
- GPU cards without discrete VRAM powered entirely by unified memory
- CXL cards to add more memory
- AI accelerator cards
There was literally just an article "Google is Using AI Age Checks To Lock Down User Accounts". From what I remember one of the AI protections EU offers I actually agree with is prohibitions on exactly this sort of automated black box judgement.
Promoting nuclear power is opposing taking the most effective steps to reduce CO2 emissions because 1) we use money to control production and therefore it matters and 2) for the same amount of money we can achieve greater CO2 reduction with wind and solar than with nuclear.
There are two kinds of people. Those who don't understand the difference between dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy and those who are unable to accept the implications.
You can't provide any credible modeling that says you can shift to wind/solar exclusively and do so cheaper than inclusion of a substantial contingent of nuclear. The reason you can't do so is your position is entirely without merit.
CO2 is poisonous and directly endangers public health. Increased CO2 levels do direct harm. The levels at which they do obvious measurable harm to anyone are significantly higher than where they are in the atmosphere on average now, but levels which affect health commonly occur in poorly ventilated spaces with lots of people in them.
The issue of CO2 concentrations on human health has been the subject of extensive study by both military and civilian agencies spanning decades. There is still nothing to support the notion public health is endangered by CO2 levels that could ever reasonably be anticipated as a consequence of human activity. Submarines for example routinely have CO2 concentrations 20x that of current outdoor average with no ill effects observed. The studies I'm aware of that noted superficial effects indicated they are temporary and pass after a brief acclimation period.
Your confusion with regards to ventilation is understandable and widespread. Recommendations from ASHRE et el. with respect to ventilation and CO2 are based on the use of CO2 as a **PROXY** for reasoning about the general load of indoor air pollution as a function of human occupancy vs air exchanges. CO2 is easy and cheap to measure while direct measurements of the legions of possible indoor pollutants which actually have valid health concerns are not.
However, your premise also is based on a falsehood. The definition of pollution is not and never was "poisonous shit".
The relevant context is of course not merely a single word. It is overall statement in the text of the legislation "pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare". So yes I very much stand by my "poisonous shit" remarks.
If people think green house gases like those emitted as a result of breathing are harmful to public health due to contributions to climate change and they want regulation to that effect then lawmakers should vote on legislation to implement such regulation.
Referring to the human impact of increased CO2 levels as similar to "gases emitted as a result of breathing" is a dumb take.
How does one even go about extracting such conclusions from my statement? I've neither offered or implied any such comparisons of impacts. It is telling when people can't even quote a complete sentence and must resort to injecting context that didn't even exist in the first place.
The increase in global CO2 levels since the beginning of industrialization, which has been on a staggering and indisputable level, is a result of industrialization, not as a result of people breathing. Go with the science and statistics, not dumb "I emit CO2 and I'm not dead yet" arguments.
No shit Sherlock. While you are off in your own world responding to a strawman of your own invention this does bring up an interesting hypothetical.
Let's say car exhaust released pheromones that resulted in people having more sex. As a result the earths population increased and with it climate change. Would such emissions therefore endanger public health or welfare?
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
It is telling to see text from the 60s reinterpreted to include climate change in the 2000's. Personally I think the text was obviously intended to address pollution (poisonous shit) that directly endangers public health......not contributes to global changes in the earths climate that can then endanger public health or welfare.
Personally I think the reinterpretation in the 2000s was wrong and opportunistic. If people think green house gases like those emitted as a result of breathing are harmful to public health due to contributions to climate change and they want regulation to that effect then lawmakers should vote on legislation to implement such regulation.
If one political faction is allowed to intrepret legislation one way it is hard to care about hurt feelings when another faction comes in and is allowed to reinterpret it in another. I am not addressing the merits of the underlying issue only my view that the process being utilized here sucks.
You can get a meshtastic dongle for like 20 bucks you clueless twit. The range of that is 1 mile and bounces from node to node so you can text just about anywhere in your city to anywhere else in your city. Compared to bluetooth low energy which only gives you 10-20 meters of range and certainly won't let you text long distance.
Bluetooth is good for about a half mile LOS in ideal conditions using coded PHY. Not nearly as good as LoRa but not terrible.
I'd rather use Meshtastic. 915mhz range not 10 foot BTLE, and sounds like the exact same deal.
If you want secure local communications for example a cruise ship (WiFi), airplane or camping in BFE Briar is a good option... Bluetooth coded PHY isn't terrible. Otherwise I agree Meshtastic is a better fit for longer range and the hardware is basically free.
"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo
