1_person
It's just a trick, of convincing ourselves it's not our problem when we are the cause.
So, basically, like REITs? It's funny that graphics card feature sets are what generate moral outrage when a feudal regression happening in real time before our very eyes in regards to the basic necessities of life.
As I said below in another thread, banning discrimination on the basis of judicial and criminal history would immediately and obviously "change human nature" because the practice of discrimination on the basis of these histories occurs openly as a best practice under standing precedent in almost every area of society.
It's literally on application forms -- how can you NOT think that requiring "the question" to be absent from the form would change the conversation about this kind of discrimination?
If we have not even said that it is wrong, then it's going to happen. Saying that it is wrong and should stop happening is the first incremental step in reducing its rate of occurrence.
Ransoming itself is already illegal and yet people still have the choice to do it.
Why would making paying the ransom illegal remove the choice to do it?
> You don't need to get the proportion to 0 to help people. Reducing the proportion is helpful. If you reduce the amount of people paying (say you convince half the population that it's immoral to pay), the ransomware gangs will be less profitable, and will invest less money in ransomware and thus less people will be attacked.
It's something that's trivial to automate which produces positive cash flow, which makes it something approaching a thermodynamic impossibility to prevent from happening.
We made spamming illegal. Most of what is spammed is already illegal. So there's no spam anymore, right?
The policy suggested produces obviously absurd outcomes when applied to plausible scenarios.
It does more harm than good, and is an emotional knee jerk which does not survive rational analysis.
But you can make charged and convicted statuses a protected class, and ban its consideration in any context as has been done for other protected classes. After all, if we believe that the process of justice rectifies wrongs, then the matter should be closed when the process has been completed. If we do not believe that the process of justice functionally rehabilitates and fairly rectifies, such that consideration of history beyond the closure of a matter is necessary, then what exactly is the aim of that process?
We could also educate the public about the purpose of the justice system, moral complexity in the assignment of responsibility in the light of historical/social/environmental/economic factors, psychology of criminality and rehabilitation, and the frequency of successful rehabilitation and subsequent significant contribution.
Pixels aren't the problem, the behavior of dehumanization is the problem.
Terrestrial optical networks operate far, far below capacity to create artificial scarcity, which is to a certain extent necessary to recoup the capital expenditures in a competitive market, and is to a certain extent an abuse of an under-regulated natural monopoly.
If you could eliminate all adversarial factors and put every data service subscriber's payment for a single month into a pool, and that pool purchased only transceivers, passive optics and switches, and this hardware was distributed to every network operator perfectly fairly based on its contribution to the global maximization of available network capacity, then the delivered capacity to the end user could increase by something like 4.5 orders of magnitude with no substantial change in topology or subscriber or provider costs afterwards using the existing fiber, with a few more orders of magnitude possible with a fatter tree before the backbone costs explode.
With DWDM you can carry 100+ channels of 100Gbps over a single fiber today, with commodity, off the shelf components. Most fiber in the ground today is probably still lit with a single wave of 10G, if it's not just dark.
This distribution model is not even remotely a technical necessity, it's an arbitrary local minima reached largely by exploitative market distortions and adversarial economics.
for example, if someone is going to die based on the information, then we would have to be ready to kill that person anyway to make a point, and apparently have perfect information about everything except how to stop this tragedy from happening, in any case the person being ransomed is essentially morally bound to pay the ransom, with the only difference in the vindictive justice case being the tangentially but not necessarily meaningfully involved party is guaranteed to die, and that doesn't seem like the outcome we're looking for here really
> Sure, but even faster is not to loop over intermediate arrays at all, by virtue of never constructing them in the first place when they aren't necessary.
In those examples of this type of pipeline, the vectors you start with are slices of hardware device descriptor queues which reference a DMA region, and by progressive transformation of the receive buffers and composition with additional buffer regions through intermediate decoded states you produce reply buffers.
The hardware is programmed to sample only the packets of interest to this descriptor queue, and copies the packets matching this filter directly to the DMA region referenced in the descriptor it places in the queue.
With sufficiently sophisticated hardware it is possible to offload decode of increasingly large fragments of protocol logic or even entire applications.
Description of the operations in a language of common composable operations over the type of vectors of buffers allows the amount of any given application which is mapped to e.g. general purpose CPU, GPU or other FPGA/ASIC offload feature instructions to vary continuously over time or API surface at runtime pretty neatly, it creates breakpoints in the logic flow that more or less always map exactly to functional hardware boundaries, because everything's pretty much just vectors of buffers all the way down really when you think about it. Your process's entire runtime is just another vector of buffers to the kernel.
As an aside, I find your choice of pronoun fascinating and enlightening.
I've been guessing wrong lately, it seems.
Do you think $266,400 will buy a house?
Do you think $13,900 will buy a house?
I understand that you can divide $266,400 over any interval that's convenient, but I don't see how that relates to my point or the facts.
In effect this means that refusing to pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation subsidizes outcomes for those that do pay the ransom.
I thank God for the Republicrats printing a third of the national debt and mailing checks directly to their cronies every time I open Zillow and realize I have effectively earned negative income for a lifetime of labor
The sooner we, as engineers, can collectively acknowledge that we're doing things so wrong it's costing us approaching 4 orders of magnitude performance, and agree to stop dismissing knowledge of the hardware as forbidden knowledge, and abusing acceptance of reality as pointless micro-optimization... then I'm sure we'll make progress towards accepting one of the many patterns people have been advocating for upwards of a decade which do solve these problems.
One of the patterns which happens to be able to reclaim most of those missing 4 orders of magnitude performance is functional data flow, which is by unfortunate coincidence essentially the pattern you're denouncing here for its performance. It actually maps almost directly to the ideal implementation because it's ... literally expressing problems in terms of vector operations with no data dependence, which maps perfectly to a parallelized pipeline of the instruction types that achieve near optimal throughput and realized IPC.
I am not trying to be a dick but I am very passionate about this topic and I disagree very strongly with your assessments of the performance here.
Increasingly things seem to be moving towards ASICs for switching and general purpose CPUs (usually with a lot of support from the NIC offload capabilities) for routing, even in 'real' networking hardware.
The vast majority of fabric ASICs would never actually utilize additional TCAM necessary to support full tables at line rate in hardware because top of rack switches do not have that many addressable targets, so it's a wasted cost.
And with DPDK optimized software implementations are achieving zero drop line rate for even 100G+ interfaces for much, much lower cost than full table routing ASICs married to fabric ASICs in a chassis switch.
It's not something a lot of users are aware of -- they often think they've bought an ASIC-based router! -- but essentially all of the big vendors entry and mid-level devices are software routers, and they're even trying to figure out how to sell their NOS experience on whitebox hardware without undercutting their branded hardware.
It's for decades, if not arguably always been a bunch of bullshit marketing for meaningless labels slapped on imported knock offs of questionable quality that you just hope they sample enough of for QA to keep the factory from slipping turds and razor blades into some of the boxes.
A program structured as a sequence of short, tight loops over vectors/slices as described is more or less hitting the performance sweet spot of modern microarchitectures.
The general form of a short loop over a vector plays to the strengths of branch prediction and the instruction cache while the temporal and spatial locality of the memory accesses are conducive to caching and pipelining.
Moreover, there's usually no need to allocate or copy the array in that sort of data flow. I mean, unless you're chasing worst case performance to make a point or something. Slice the buffers out of a pool and allow ownership of the data to follow the execution context, then you're free to modify it in place.
The above points cover 3-4 orders of magnitude real world performance.
It is true that there are some issues with the optimizer working in this pattern but I have only seen performance severely degraded in this pattern by compile time type ambiguity -- some but not all interface{} parameters, anonymous functions / closures in scopes with dynamic type. Interface types with a pointer receiver do not typically encounter these specific issues, and I believe the empty interface type has much better performance since ~1.12 or so as well.
Read the laws or remain ignorant, I don't care.
Moving on, what I actually said, and what I actually meant, was that those laws are incredibly vague and have been used to convict more or less everything under the sun except actual wire or mail frauds.
If a conviction involves only wire, mail, and money laundering charges then it is because the only guilt that could be proven was axiomatic.
Pardon me for pausing a moment to ponder before picking up a stone and joining you.
The wire fraud and mail fraud statutes are written to be vague enough that basically existing is a violation, money laundering is existing with money.
If they had real crimes they would have charged them, this is just some "because I don't like you" political bullshit.
One might even go to say that there are very real systemic and social inequities which have nothing at all to do with your rape fixation...
The politics of inequality simply provide one the ability to advocate for their interests at the expense of others' while avoiding rational dissent and social stigma.
To me it seems you have gone to great lengths to clarify that you mean exactly what the original poster is referring to.
I don't believe their reading your argument at face value is in any way assuming the worst possible interpretation.
It's not a personal attack for someone to disagree with your beliefs.
I have been following the technologies (direct frame buffer capture and inline encode) for a long time because they are also the enabling technologies for high performance locally clustered visualization.
The features were at one point completely unrestricted in the driver, then one day cloud gaming was the next big thing and you had to buy a $10,000 GPU or be Steam to access those APIs.
If you are interested in remote collaboration or scalable visualization you'll just have to hold your breath and wait to see if nVidia and others can strong arm children into economic exploitation, because the technologies are currently being held hostile while industry works through various lubrication formulations for the slope they intend to shove us down.