For reference, it’s a whole genre. Not to be confused with appliances that have speakers and bzzt or beep or play jingles or whatever, or for that matter also musical tesla coils, those are much more like speakers.

It’s been a part of computer culture since pretty much forever, now kinda dying out because nothing is mechanical any more.

Every sys/devops and programmer will know what a hash is, salt at least the sys/devops.

The general population though will be thinking of hash browns when hearing those terms and “encrypted” is absolutely close enough. So close that insisting on the difference in a non-technical context is definitely pedantic.

They aren’t, newsweek is calling it encryption because they’re writing for normies. The leaked data includes bcrypt’ed passwords, so hash and per-password salt. Their choice of hashing function is not what you want to criticise the IA for.

deleted by creator

Looks like a skill issue on your part.

A CD doesn’t really mean anything, the license and the physical medium generally aren’t tied. If you break the medium but have a backup you’re not pirating anything. I’d say the primary difference to a CD isn’t more or less secure but physical or not.

Downloading the game also requires an online connection. You’d only need one when you’re buying or selling the license NFT or moving it from one download platform to another, and of course to download the game. Whether you need an online connection to play depends on the game, not the NFT.

Oh, speaking of: Are you an EU citizen? Have you already signed this?

NFTs would make sense for things like tradable software licenses. E.g steam is going to be forced to allow users to sell their games soonish (they’re appealing the ruling and it’s only a matter of time until they lose) and you wouldn’t want such a license to be tied to a particular marketplace, so NFTs make sense: The game publisher mints it, it’s tradable freely, sites like steam and gog can look at them and say “yep this hasn’t been tampered with and was minted by the publisher”, and serve you the game files. Presumably they’d want you to occasionally buy something on their platform to let you use their servers to download games they didn’t sell you, or you could pay a small sum for the service.

The NFT itself, of course, doesn’t enforce anything. It’s just a non-fungible token representing usage rights in the game. Like a cd key but more secure, for the publisher (key can’t be duplicated / used multiple times, I mean a platform that would allow that could just as well go all the way and be a torrent release group) and the buyer (can check validity of key before spending money) and seller (buyer can’t claim bullshit like “key didn’t work”).

What you probably would not do is put that stuff on already-existing blockchains because why should the industry pay ludicrous transaction fees when you can roll your own.

An NPU is a cut-down GPU to allow running ML workloads on restrained power budgets.

Quite literally. Keep the memory architecture, keep the massive banks of ALUs, remove the little intelligence GPU cores have in their control units and you have an NPU. Oh, one more thing: Make sure those ALUs support ludicrously low precision arithmetic. GPUs can do the same without any real downside, though, the reason GPUs floored out at fp16 is because there were no workloads benefitting from lower precision.

It makes sense on mobile devices and phones have been shipping them for ages to do their AI image processing, listening for voice commands etc, it makes sense for at least some data centres because specialising your hardware to save electricity is worth it, it doesn’t make sense anywhere in between. Just get a proper GPU and you can do AI and play Crysis.

Even if you had perfect knowledge of the current state of the universe, knew all the laws, you still couldn’t predict shit. The reason is chaos, more precisely: There are no closed-form solutions to chaotic systems. To simulate them you have to go through all the time steps (assuming, without loss of generality¹, discrete time), simulate every single of them one after the other, arguably creating a universe while doing so. And you have to do that with the computational resources of the universe you’re trying to simulate. Good luck. Chaos also means that approximate solutions won’t help because sensitivity to small perturbations: There’s no upper bound to how far your approximation will be off.

¹ I can wave my hands faster than you. I dare you. I double-dare you.

They didn’t even come up with the word it’s a calque. First the Prussians came and said our language is an obstacle to education, now they’re plundering our dictionary. And to top it all off they’re not even bold enough to propose this one.

Brb, going to brew myself some itch apple tea.

The latest annoyance is that they will AI-translate posts and stick those into search engines.

I don’t know where you got North Carolina from, I was speaking in general. Also the place has plenty of coastline. Also you don’t need to live near the coast to live in a flood area, plenty of rivers that can and do flood. In mountainous regions it’s not about building on the right side of the dike, but not at the bottom of the valley, and in the places in between it’s about… well, it’s usually not really about not building in one particular place, but making sure that there’s areas that you can flood to protect areas you want to keep dry. Much cheaper to pay off a farmer for a lost harvest and cleanup than half a million people for losing their homes.

That’s not bonkers that’s sanity. If you want to build your house in front of a dike don’t expect to get insurance. The trick is to build in a place where there’s a risk, not certainty, of damage.

It’s absolutely bonkers. I don’t get how Americans can build houses in leopard enclosures and then act all surprised when, inevitably, their faces get eaten. I know you’re a settler country with little connection to the land but it’s been long enough to know which parts get flooded and which don’t, now hasn’t it. Around here you don’t even get building permits for lots of stuff in places even if you were willing to take on all financial risk yourself because it’d put unconscionable load on disaster relief, and thereby society at large.

So, there’s two ways to go from where you are: a) Double-down on being Yanks and say “fuck you got mine sucks to be you”, abolish disaster relief and let those rugged individuals fend for themselves, or b) fucking build where it fucking makes sense. It’s not like you’re Singapore or something, you’ve got more than enough land.

It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.

I’m not much for moralising, I find it ineffective when it comes to influencing the world… though I guess your kind of take makes sure that takes like mine actually properly flesh out the strategic rationale.

I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression.

If I were to chose to not be complicit in systems of oppression then I’d have to boycott parliamentary democracy and no I’m not going to effectively hand my vote to Nazis by refusing to vote. That kind of refusal works on the small scale, on the larger scale, well. Compromises have to be made regarding means/ends unity to protect what has already been achieved. Meanwhile, properly means/ends unified action has to be insulated against getting besmirched by those compromises, that means acting, in addition, outside of the parliamentary system. Uncompromising, universally perfect moral action is only possible in a world full of perfectly moral actors in the mean time we have to wear different hats in different places.

So to circle back: If Volt can make a dent into New Labour and Christian Democrat acquiescence with ultimately quite unchristian things, popularise a liberalism which isn’t crypto-feudalism, then yes I wish them all the best. They, too, will need to be overcome but that’s a topic for the future, currently they’re convenient. In principle my stance to Diem is the same but politically they’re rather stale. As in: Too much smell of Soviet mothballs, the parliamentary left will have to re-invent itself before it’s able to inspire masses, again.

I think that they’re just as much reformist as Volt’s stuff. And terminally parliamentarist. But that’s not so much a criticism as an observation, we certainly should get what we can get out of the parliamentary procedure, imperfect as it is.

TBH I’m not even sure whether revolution is possible any more, we might have already had it with the institution of liberal democracy but still have to get over the hangover. As in: The tipping point has been crossed, but old shackles are still dangling on our collective psyche, getting rid of them will simply take time. The state will not go out in flames, but wither. Or, paraphrasing Kerry Thornley: Failing that, it at least won’t annoy anyone any more.

If you look at the German program they’re mentioning increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem and are specifically mentioning the increase in low-wage work as a mistake. They want to make the tax system more progressive as well as bring taxation of capital gains more in line with existing taxation on income. In translation, that means tax hikes for the rich. Also stuff like cracking down on tax evasion and tax havens, also targeted at the rich (practically impossible to evade taxes as a worker, here).

Generally speaking there’s a ton of points in there which make them a red flag for parties in ALDE. Greens/EFA (which Volt are part of) might occasionally have neoliberal bouts, but their heart isn’t in it, just as with SocDems and Christian Democrats. Have you considered that your image of liberals in general might be unduly coloured by neolibs? There are liberals who understand that capital can be used to attain the very privileges liberals, back in the days, were keen on denying the nobility.

Bullshit. Pirates are also liberals and most definitely prefer the UBI+flat tax model.

It might be inconvenient for the let’s call it tankie-adjacent left that liberals support an idea that’d actually be a net benefit for workers, OTOH a proper Marxist should be able to sort that under “yet another curious contradiction inherent in the system” and then vote in favour for it lest being considered an accelerationist.

Do I want to scroll down? Nah, not really.

I’ll just leave this here: No, not all men are rapists. Yes, all men should stand up to them. It’s that simple and if you deviate from that formula you dive into rape culture or misandry, depending, are part of the problem, actively, passively, in one way or the other.

As a man, have this attitude (there’s subtitles).

As a woman… “Dudes it’s only an embellishment” “noone thinks ‘all men’ is meant seriously” STFU you’re being catty you know exactly how often women use covert aggression, use plausible deniability to get away with the vilest shit, even if you don’t mean it like that right now, in this instance, it’s still how it’s perceived, and no, not all men deserve to be treated like that. So cut it out.

I mean yes it’s electromagnetic radiation.

but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess.

And the same thing cannot be said if you have means-tested welfare?

At least in the German discussion about this it’s generally understood that it’d replace regular unemployment and disability payments, but not abolish things like say money the blind get because braille displays are expensive. Our social systems already work with averages.

That the payment is sufficient is already included in the “B” term, btw. In German terms it’s supposed to cover the socio-cultural existence minimum: Enough to live and participate in society.