Why not? I thought it was een interesting choice ;-P

The innovation powerhouse ladies and gentleman 🤣 bravo ms (slow-clap…)

How very mature. All the “fight” will amount to nothing except to demostrating their toddler-in-chief’s petulant behavior.

🙋

Hard to interpret this amount any other way than permission to keep doing the same thing. $20M is like a rounding error for Big Tech.

Not true. Cutting reliance on gas - of whatever origin - is of the utmost importance. I mean anything energy related. Natural gas has other uses besides burning it to generate power, not talking about that. Renewables + energy storage tech are good enough substitutes that should prevent any new investments in last century’s tech.

I have no idea who blew up ns2 nor have any interest in speculations. It would be important to know, but without any convincing evidence this just distracts people from more important stuff. At some point we’ll know. Whatever has happend, AFAIC it was the right outcome for the wrong reasons.

If you have a concrete suggestion as to the stack don’t hold back 😃

If you’re into Astronomy you’ll like Frasier Cain

I used to like Sabine H. but for a few years now she does not seem to be well.

Last time I tried to watch Firefly gave up @s1e4. The other one on Netflix, I gave that up in e1. Both cringe as hell.

🤦‍♂️

I don’t mean existing manufacturers necessarily. Unfortunately there are no certainties, but I’d say give it some time. These chips are (or at the very least becoming) strategic commodities, so the greater the squeeze the more appealing the business case will be. Besides, both the US and EU want to grow their chip manufacturing capacity and it’s not like there is no investment money available. So at some point production capacity will grow.

Apparently there is a huge demand for storage, both RAM and disk. Oh, and GPUs… So what happens when large number of people are looking to buy stuff? In time, I think there is a silver lining here…

Just one of the many sympthoms of an empire in decline.

Good point. Have no elegant solution for that at the ready.

I wonder why such discussions are always framed as an all or nothing propositions. Zero knowledge systems are a decades old invention. Just very briefly: based on some ID a site issues cryptographycally signed tokens claiming some fact, e.g. the requester being an actual real person, adulthood, etc. Such a token could be presented by an otherwise anonymous user to a 2nd site with their own signature as proof of said property in order to consume their service. Tokens could even be single use.

A requirement to prove someone is, in fact, a human is not unreasonable. Banning bots or bad actors could be a solution to a lot of the problems on social media etc…

There is naturally a major shortcoming of this scheme, authoritarians could not track people…

Besides the critique towards the person have you any insights as to which of his statements could be biased?

I’m just going to leave this here for reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This is a ridiculus statement coming from a government official. Can’t imagine any other motivation than a clickbait equivalent intended to sling the topic in the public limelight.

Given enough effort and time all software can be reverse engineered. So “jailbreaking” is plausible. But that is just one piece of this puzzel. Here is a more informed version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X9ww6FtUhE

It is simple: nowadays security awareness is drilled in for most of the online population. If presented with a choice people can’t oversee, the default safest option is not to chose. I mean, how many new Mastodon users know any of these servers?

So, as couter-intuitive or even ironic it may seem, the “problem” is choice. People need to learn that social media is no longer a single entity, but more like email or choosing a bank.