If it's anything like the Oscars, the whole thing is determined by whoever pays the highest bribe to promote their crap. I don't get why people get excited over the world's longest, most boring advertisement.

And Mel Brooks is 100. Age doesn't make them any less relevant, the problem is you're just a fucking prude. Guess what else was popular among the youth in their times? Temperance, fascism, and Maoism. Being an asshole knows no age minimum or maximum.

These guys, though old, age well. Prudish assholes like you do not. History will look favorably upon them, where you'll go down more like Kellogg or Graham.

Quick question: Is she wrong?

The previous post made a point, which you totally sidestepped.

I have no opinion on Sabing Hossenfelder either way, but I get the impression that physics has largely stalled over the last few decades.

So... I'm just wondering, Is she wrong?

Tesco's - one of the UK's largest supermarkets - came out a few months ago and said "We've migrated off VMWare because of the licensing". They did it in months. On the major backends running every store in the country.

They had a massive dispute with VMWare and are suing them (they say they bought a perpetual licence, VMWare then cut them off), but while they did that... they just migrated their ENTIRE infrastructure.

Sure, it's a big thing to do. But it's not impossible, doesn't take years and - like Tesco - you don't need to wait to do it. If it's THAT business-critical? All the more reason to have an alternative ready to move to at a moment's notice.

Companies CHOOSE to get tied in, they CHOOSE to only ever run one system, they CHOOSE to make the migration painful, they CHOOSE to hold back on it in the hopes they can negotiate to carry on just as they are. And those are all DUMB from a business-continuity point of view and no substantial organisation should be allowing that to happen.

Pretending that huge organisations paying Broadcom millions are somehow powerless in this is actual complicity in the worthless side of IT where everything is just absent of any redundancy, resiliency, independence, failover, etc. etc. etc.

First, don't invke a "both sides" fallacy. It's stupid.
Second, is there any evidence anywhere that the US engages in any of these? Because it's already known that Russia does both, and in fact uses chemical weapons such as vx/novochik
Third, president Nixon issued an executive order mandating that no government entities engage in this in any way at all, and unlike your tsar's decrees, executive orders have no effect if they're not made pubic, so they can't be secretly cancelled, amended, or ignored. We have a system of checks and balances, you do not.

So first it was opt in, but because nobody really wanted or asked for it, it became opt out. Still, nobody wanted it, so now they don't even get a choice. And ifans wonder why I don't like apple.

Probably worth mentioning at this time that Russia never stopped its bioweapons (and chemical weapons) research and development, which includes inducing antibiotics resistance into deadly microbes.

If this is what that is, you already know you can count on incompetent Russia to hit itself with its own weapon.

As I suggested in 2011 in this video, theft may rise if people lose faith in the exchange economy. Other interwoven economies of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned could also alternatively take up the slack if they were improves -- instead of people becoming more inclined to crime.
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

My thanks to a Slashdot commentator many years ago who suggested I add a "theft" economy to the other four.

So, my hypothesis is that theft around SF could be substantially reduced if some mix of these were made to happen:
1. It was easier to do subsistence production (like using 3D printers, solar panels, and gardening robots etc.)
2. the SF gift economy (charity, sharing, freecycle, free 3D models, etc) was stronger.
3. the California exchange economy was working better for everyone (i.e. less wealth concentration through inflated property prices, limits on multiples of CEO pay vs lowest paid worker, a basic income, etc)
4. the California planned economy was working better (i.e. fairer taxation of property, public investments that create good jobs or reduce product prices or increase product quality, changing zoning restrictions to make affordable housing more feasible, more responsive democratic government, etc)

Sadly, because people tend to focus on only the exchange economy when talking about economic (and so ignore strengthening those other areas), we will likely see increasing theft as we go into a recession and as AI takes enough jobs to disrupt the exchange economy.

More ideas I've collected are here:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Fbeyond-...
        "This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

For comparison, Starlink V3 satellites have a solar array wingspan of 70 meters.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cctvmanuals.com%2F20...
See also https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrokipedia.com%2Fpage%2FSt...

They are, of course, technology that is about 40 years later than the ISS design

I know there is an XKCD about standards (and adding yet one more to create yet more confusion).
"Standards"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F927%2F

But that said, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all terrible standards in many ways because of their complexity (and major design flaws like JavaScript having vastly too many global variables). Asa an alternative, what if, say, we all just used something like Scheme (or Common Lisp) to encode web documents and web code as S-expressions in some semantically standardized formats? Scheme can be very compact in its implementation.

Or as the XKCD mentioned here says:
"Lessons learned from implementing minimal Scheme six times"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwolodzko.github.io%2Fpo...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F297%2F
"Lisp cycles XKCD #297: âoeThose are your fatherâ(TM)s parentheses. Elegant weapons for a more⦠civilized age.â"

Now, it doesn't have to be Lisp-like.I get the paren hate:
"What makes Lisp difficult to read?"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Flisp%2F...

And there is a lot to be said for significant-indentation languages like Occam or Python. Smalltalk is another great language. Or even some variant of a safe C.

Even a Forth-derivative perhaps that could be literally less than ~2K in size at the core. Although I get that there is a fine line between flexible and flabby in readability in a language that can change its own fundamental syntax or that makes naming intermediate variables unlikely as a form of documentation. Same with any language that supports arbitrary macros like C or Scheme which can change the fundamental nature of the language. Although at least in, say, Racket Scheme you see the language level set at the start of some code to know what you are getting into.

The main point is just that yet another adhoc problematical language like JavaScript was not needed (even as TypeScript papers over the worst warts). And CSS conceptually is broken for big projects ("Atomic" CSS is one style to help with that). And adding end tags with names in HTML (like XML) is another broken concept as are other aspects of HTML. Yes, programmers can work around and manage the issue in these web fundamentals, but why should we have to?

While a simpler browser for HTML etc is a good thing if it really is well written, better standards for encoding and sharing information will ultimately get us further and be more energy efficient and be more reliable and be more programmer-friendly.

I've long been a fan of triples for doing some of that data encoding, but that is even further out.

Tangentially, here is a Libre Plane 2021 talk I put together on free standards for social media being more important than free implementations:
"Free/Libre Standards for Social Media and other Communications"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Flibrepl...

I know this all may sound pie in the sky (and it is, given current social dynamics), but consider if we used the usual buggy lot-of-library junky (and now AI slop) code only with an intent to translate web content encoded in problematical standards into content encoded in better simpler standards for other code to consume. Sort of like Amazon did at one point with a server-side engine to process HTML pages and transform them for low-end Kindle browsers -- but in this case converting HTML plus CSS plus JavaScript into something like, say, S-expressions for web content that was not yet written directly n the simpler standards. Maybe the junky translator code might not be perfect, but it might be good enough and runnable in distant containers so that the local code that processed the simpler standards could be more secure and reliable.

Also related: "Simple Made Easy"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.infoq.com%2Fpresenta...
"Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicityâ(TM)s virtues over easinessâ(TM), showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path. ... We should aim for simplicity because simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability. Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. "Easy" means "to be at hand", "to be approachable". "Simple" is the opposite of "complex" which means "being intertwined", "being tied together". Simple != easy. ..."

Ideally a group like the US National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Library of Congress should fund this sort of work. And a group like Archive.org should have a lot of input to those standards on how to make the content simply versionable and simply archivable.

Anyway, just something I have been musing on and off again for many years...

First of all, what do you mean by "a cure"? There are so many different ways that cancer varies that chasing after one cure to rule them all is just stupid. This is why the clinical definition of cancer is so narrow: A category of diseases involving cells that ignore normal signals and mechanisms to stop dividing or undergo apoptosis and can invade nearby tissue. Plenty of healthy tissues in your body do one of these but not another. So...how do you target them for a "cure"? The answer is and always will be: It depends.

Second of all, there's already a lot of money being put into cancer research. A great, great deal of it in fact.

Third of all, we already have cures for some forms of cancer. I myself had my cancer cured: I had basal cell carcinoma on the top of my ear lobe. Guess what the cure was? Pretty fucking easy: Pick up a scalpel, use the scalpel to excise the differentiated basal cells. Healthy basal cells will eventually take their place. There, cured.

That's probably because it's stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with my original comment: You so badly overestimate your own expertise on this topic that you literally claimed to know that this is "not thermodynamically possible with known science". The problem is, nobody with actual expertise on this topic, including the ones who are saying this won't work, aren't making this argument. The actual experts on this topic aren't making arguments based on physics, full stop, mainly because from a purely scientific and engineering perspective, the concept itself has already been proven. The concept is only not proven when you take cost into consideration. But you're not making an argument based on cost, you're trying to make an argument based on science, and you lost that argument before you even started. And worse, you still don't even know why you lost that argument.

It's certainly doable, the question is and always has been a matter of cost. As somebody has already mentioned, there are currently several players investing millions into R&D on this. They wouldn't even be going that far if they had already concluded that this was impossible.

No matter who does it though, (Google, SpaceX, some smaller players) they're ultimately counting on Starship delivering what it promises. So far, Starship is doing that, just not on the original predicted time horizon.