Those are not separate things.

It exists, but "works quite well" is only for a small amount of heat. It takes a big radiator to get rid of heat to ax vacuum. Much easier and cheaper to just keep the computers on earth and cool them with standard air or liquid cooling setups.

The required radiator for cooling isn’t that much larger than the required solar panel for powering the thing in the first place, and you don’t see everyone saying those are impossible. Is it easier to keep them on the ground? Obviously, but that wasn’t the claim. It just isn’t nearly as hard to cool things in space as a lot of people seem to think.

>there are a lot of services which, unfortunately, only allow sign-ups from big, well-known domains.

I have never encountered one.

Popular gaming forums NeoGaf and Resetera only allow signups from paid email accounts. All free and temporary email providers are banned to discourage trolls / forum raids / alt accounts.

Ars Technica is one you can test I believe. I think I had to register with Gmail and put in a support ticket to ask them to change it to my real email. I use Fastmail, not a selfhosted setup or anything, some services absolutely have a domain allowlist for email signup.

The goal of this administration has never been effective policy or at least not policy effective at doing things other than self-enrichment and disenfranchisement.

> The USG has limited capabilities on technologies from GPS chips

Are you referring to Selective Availability? That ended decades ago.

Selective Availability accuracy restrictions ended decades ago, but GPS technology is still subject to various military and export-control restrictions.

Not selective availability. COCOM Limits that prevent a GPS chip from operating above a certain speed and altitude.

It’s funny because it’s just (relativistic) math. It would cost a couple hundred bucks to roll your own with no restrictions.

>It's more like dumping a set of binary block data structures from memory to disk.

That sounds exactly like a file format to me. Are you suggesting that json is the only format developers might be aware of?

I'm suggesting that newer developers will find Exif to be quite different from hierarchical file formats that use delimiters between data elements, as is common practice lately with XML / JSON / YAML / etc. And it is technically somewhat challenging to manipulate Exif using the most popular high-level languages. Obviously competent developers can overcome these challenges.

I don’t think there’s a whole lot of room for improvement there.

You’re seriously arguing that Google’s libel shouldn’t count as libel because they showed it to too many people? It’s absolutely insane to suggest that a company should be immune from liability for its actions if it operates on such scale that those actions harm millions of people every day on the basis that dealing with that many lawsuits would be too inconvenient.

its not inaccurate though.

consider Purdue pharma - the Sacklers got off with all their wealth intact because they were too big to sue and properly collect money for their victims.

But we agree that this was also wrong, right?

Yeah its wild to see people actually using "kill a million people and its a statistic" as a defense rather than to point out injustice.

No they got away with it through a combination of lax pharmaceutical laws, and because they were rich and connected to the officials who should have investigated them.

They're also almost universally regarded as having committed evil acts at this point, so who cares why they got away with it?

Just because someone got away with it means everyone should get away with it ?

Exactly, it's like saying Wikipedia shouldn't be liable and immediately shut down for any wrong information shown on it.

Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down, but they have to remove the libel.

The problem for LLMs is that they do not learn, and can't be prevented to produce that libel ever again. If Google finds a way to make that happen, no court would stop them from offering an LLM.

The court isn’t stopping them from offering an LLM, it’s saying that serving the output of its LLM is, in this sense, equivalent to serving the output of a human writer they hired. That is, it is Google’s speech and they are directly liable for it, unlike when they’re just serving search results that are somebody else’s speech.

I heard daffodils are where it's at.

The source of your information requires more scrutiny.

Your flower guy is probably in league with the Dutch and certainly behind the times.

What does that actually mean?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats — the salt flats are extremely flat (as the name implies), and because of all the salt, no vegetation can survive. Look at the pictures: there are no trees, no grass, no hiding places at all. Anyone standing (or even lying prone) on the salt flats is visible to anyone else for miles around.

GP was saying that systems should be "transparent enough that a compromised system is obvious". I'm not entirely convinced that that's possible (On Trusting Trust should have taught us that compromised systems can create places for the compromise to hide), which means that the salt flats analogy is not a great analogy, IMHO. But at least now you understand the analogy.

I don’t think the analogy was the issue. What does it mean for a system to be so transparent that it’s obvious when it’s compromised?

What I mean can be shown with an example:

Let’s say first that we know (some) users will inevitably agree to let malware compromise their system, no matter the popup or protections

A compromised system that’s transparent:

- Has only one way an executable can be started and, being designed as a “salt flat”, it’s easy to read

- Exposes all I/O and all network requests (to admins), regardless of driver abstractions

In this case, even a young enthusiast can look at a system and immediately see that it’s compromised, remove it’s ability to start or do work, and likely remove it from the system entirely.

The inspiration for this approach is a backlash against the absolute glut of places to hide in current user-focused systems. From multiple startup options, to services, to drivers, and in to the “hidden from the admin” executables that can be compromised it’s an ever-worsening problem that erodes user’s ability to keep their own system secure

That what apps have permission to access/record what at what times they use it, shouldn't be hidden or scaterred across several Settings panels.

I can’t speak for the ancestor, but I think making every screen recording app prominently visible in the status bar would fit the bill.

I was thinking it would even go so far as to make the background red if it failed some heuristics.