The linux implementation is quite poor. Among other issues, your answer is linux treats it as a TCP/IP link- so packets don't have any offloading for checksums, etc. it's also incomplete (ex- you have to physically unplug and replug the cord every time one side loses link- even a reboot).
This is my firsthand experence trying to get some tablet motherboards to link up and work as a proxmox cluster w/ TB3 as the link between nodes.
I have a 3 node proxmox setup on MS-01s using a 25G Thunderbolt ring for Ceph, and indeed it took a lot of hoops to get it working correctly and reliably. I did manage to get it such that nodes can go up and down without needing to unplug anything, and the dynamic routing works if a node disappears. Performance is pretty good, with a more realistic 20ish gbit/sec.
I figured this was Jeff’s CTO Laboratory. I enjoy your channel. Are you kicking yourself for pulling the trigger on MS-01s now that MS-02 Ultras released?
The difference being that sexuality is typically considered an innate desire, whilst the desire to commit violence is not.
Plus, we as a species have a biological imperative to protect our offspring, but apparently an immense capacity to ignore violence committed against others.
Monkey see. Monkey do. Nothing surprising here. Once people decide to do something then they model their actions on what they've seen. Even for such innate and strong desires. So completely hands off approach, leaving it to market forces, might not be the best course of action. But banning doesn't seem like a golden bullet either.
I agree, but then again didn’t we have the same debate about violent video games? I don’t know why I am okay with simulated violence but repulsed by simulated sexuality.
The difference being that sexuality is typically considered an innate desire, whilst the desire to commit violence is not.
Plus, we as a species have a biological imperative to protect our offspring, but apparently an immense capacity to ignore violence committed against others.
Considering how many people want to murder people (or justify murdering people) simply for being attracted to children, are you categorically sure about that?
People say the same thing about anime artwork and manga, which is an excuse I don't buy into.
The only reason I personally can't condone photorealistic AI images is because they're indistinguishable from photographs.
And in this case, it's required the exploitation of another human being (their photograph, or a photograph of them) in order to undress/manipulate the image.
Of course they do, if enforced. The number of eight year-olds working in factories is substantially lower than it used to be due to regulations. *in modern democracies
The alternative is to refuse to delegate the formation and development of the character of our children and culture to automated systems and regulatory policies. Engage with your children on topics that matter. Discuss the pros and cons of various viewpoints and political platforms with your friends and neighbors, colleagues and fellow bus-riders. We, ourselves, are the psychosocial immune system for society, and if we construct an environment in which we can not be exposed harmful concepts, then we will never learn how to respond and combat it when we inevitably are exposed to it.
This is not to say that we should not actively work to prevent criminal acts, but that trying to establish a world in which such acts are impossible will cripple society in ways which will leave us vulnerable to much larger and more systemic abuses. Benjamin Franklin’s statement rings as true as ever, if in a rather updated context: “ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Yes because self-organizing communities have never appeared anywhere in history.
Just because you are afraid you can't win arguments doesn't mean you should get to impose your view by violence. Which is what you advocate for, when you say the government should impose your views on the population.
Quite an abrasive / overly defensive response, sorry you feel that way.
Not trying to win an argument, I just haven't really got a solid answer. People just get passionate about how they should have a right to secret communications online, why all the burden should be on parents to protect kids from harmful substances, yet can't really give a good reason as to why that is. Yet on the other hand, those same people probably want to live in a world that is relatively safe from terrorism, sexual abuse etc.
I just said I can understand why to some people, wanting to stop children having access to a VPN doesn't necessarily have to be this big secret government overreach conspiracy?
Do I think we should have to have government surveillance software running on everyone's computer? No. I just understand more than a single perspective and I think those who seem to shoot these proposals down rarely give good arguments expect, basically, the government is out to get us, or it suits me the way it is now.
LG Gram user here with Debian as a daily driver. Can confirm, maybe not 15h, but I don't think about charging. Plus, it's super stable, not a single crash or hang-up over years. It just works. I hope LG will keep this up and not mess up next iterations of the hardware.
I had an LG gram before the battery in it gave out and now it won't boot with the battery plugged in. The battery life was amazing, it always slept properly, etc.
Now I have a Framework. It randomly reboots when I close the lid, the battery life is terrible, etc. I live with it since I like the idea of a repairable laptop.
Except that it is not materially false. Only in a perfect society will your “system that flags illicit content” not become a system that flags whatever some authoritarian regime considers threatening, and subverting public logging/auditing is similarly trivial to a motivated authoritarian. All your hypothetical solutions rely on humans, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by either money or being beaten with pipes, and on corporations, who are notoriously susceptible to being influenced by things that influence their stock price.
The Pleyel’s corollary to Murphy’s law is that all compromises to individuals’ rights made for the sake of security will eventually be used to further deprive them of those rights.
(I especially liked the line “You can require cops to build multiple sufficient points of independently corroborated evidence before arresting people.”)
This is already the case with other means of communication. the internet isn't that special. If you don't trust your government, do something else about it.
We rely on eye witness testimony and human juries all the time. The innocence project has a long list of people that spent decades in prison because of this.
The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one, not tolerate cp on the internet.
> The solution to authoritarian regimes is to not have one
The solution to not being poor is being rich. You could apply that logic to a lot of things. Have this thing instead of that thing. Using your example above of "differential privacy scanning"
Differential privacy is a property of a dataset meaning you can’t tell an individual was part of a dataset. If it’s traceable back to the individual device it’s not differentially private.
I think at this point you're just trying to say "don't have this thing have that thing instead" as a response to anything.
Certainly you can. The solution to being poor is not being poor. how? that is a different story, but ultimately, the solution to being poor must be not being poor, otherwise it isn't a solution right? And of course it is a reductive take, but it is nevertheless correct. Solutions that don't result in poor people no longer being poor are not solutions. Solutions that don't involve in not having an authoritarian regime are not solutions to that problem either.
Your solution to authoritarian regimes is not fighting CSAM, you made the CSAM problem worse, and it does not prevent authoritarian regimes. An authoritarian regime does not need your permission to scan your phone. And most human governments in history qualify as authoritarian, and they didn't need phones let along scanning of phones.
> I think at this point you're just trying to say "don't have this thing have that thing instead" as a response to anything.
I'm saying: "If you don't like apples, don't eat apples. Don't talk about how we need to kill all the bees and worms that help apple trees reproduce".
> Differential privacy is a property of a dataset meaning you can’t tell an individual was part of a dataset.
Yeah, that's correct. And that's a violation of individual's privacy..how?
What would it take for you to consider scanning of phones a valid solution. Would mass murder, global nuclear war, pandemic containment? Is it a question of not understanding the harm being done? My frustration is that, ok, let's not scan phones. what's your solution? You have none. Your solution is to do nothing and accept things should be the way they are. If I said let's verify everyone's ID before they can access the internet, is that acceptable? Let's ban Tor and VPNs instead, is that acceptable? What is your solution? Can you at least agree what we should aggresively be working on a solution? We have people training LLMs to generat CSAM and you hear not a peep out of all these companies and devs working on the tech. Just slap knees and declare "welp, that's unfortunate".
I don't care what governments do. If it takes an authoritarian regime to stop this insanity, I'm all for it. I'll be royally screwed, it will be a nightmware. But if that is the cost, so be it. This is how authoritarians gain power by the way. You have the apathetic educated and ruling classes, and the masses crying for change, and they will actually solve the problem but destroy everything else along the way. I'm tell you that if I, someone who is relatively aware and informed of the risks of privacy loss, of tech underlying the systems we use, if I am saying this, imagine what the majority of people would say.
it took one 9/11 attack to get us the patriot act, if someone used Tor on their rooted android phone to do something worse, phone scanning will be the least of your concerns. And the public would support it. You need a solution because the public demands it, at the cost of privacy if required. But it is for technologists to device a mechanism that solves the problem without costing us privacy.
One scenario would be if it scanned it once in 8 days and once in 4 days, due to, say, an elliptical orbit or something. Thus, twice in 12 days, but not once every 6 days.
Alternately, complex orbital tracks may result in irregular accumulation of multiple scans, with double scanning only finally being achieved after 12 days.
If you are asserting that Linus Pauling was the only two-time winner of the Nobel Prize, my doubt in the accuracy of your conclusions has only increased, given that Marie Curie, John Bardeen, and Frederick Sanger have all won two Nobel Prizes.
If it’s truly just like the methods astrophysicists use for transit imaging, you might even be able to do some funky stuff like monitor invisible gasses. Could potentially be revolutionary for things like fume safety and viral spread tracking, among other uses. Might even be able to analyze liquids in a container without having to touch the liquid (the name for this type of testing evades me at the moment)
I believe it'd be pretty wonky coloring, or at least it could be, since it'd be capturing snapshots of individual frequency responses. If something is visibly green, reflecting across most of the greenish areas of spectrum, but happens to absorb the exact frequency of the laser, it'd appear black when imaged this way. Or at least not green.
I think that’s the case for regular cameras too though, the filter for the pixels doesn’t exactly replicate the response of the cones in the eyes either, right? So you have things where the camera sees a different color than a human eye.
Regular cameras respond to a wide range of wavelenghts, and they do actually reasonably mimic the response of the human eye.
Either way, it's the "range" vs "single wavelength" that's key here. The green band (or blue band or red band) isn't one wavelength. It's an average over a fairly broad range. Single-wavelength (or very narrow range) images are quite different.
Take a photo of the sun setting behind clouds, and then marvel that the camera still sees a big red Sun, when your eye barely sees it. That's because the camera goes way farther into the red than your eye, and the clouds let that sub-red through.
