When it comes to climate change, it doesn't matter where the CO2 from fossil-fuel production is released (climate change is a global phenomenon), so, you are still "adding pollution by producing", you are just offshoring it somewhere else. But I guess it makes the "progressive" liberals that are the majority in California feel good and virtuous, so here we are.

As I say above, cryptocurrency was designed to work around the banking system, so the only protection FTX customers have is a bankruptcy claim. So, the price of the assets is determined at the time of bankruptcy (November 2022). But anyway, they might not even get that, it all depends on how much money the liquidation raises. Keep in mind Caroline's gambling lost the equivalent of $ 8 billion in customer funds, so it's dubious whether the liquidation can cover that even with the rise in cryptocurrency prices.

Huh? If you read the article, it's obvious the customers want their actual cryptocurrency back (and not a USD-equivalent amount calculated with the low November 2022 prices), but it's not happening because nobody is foolish enough to foot the bill to relaunch FTX. So, liquidation it is.

BTW it's worth noting that cryptocurrency was designed to work around the banking system, so the only protection FTX customers have is a bankruptcy claim. So, the price of the assets is determined at the time of bankruptcy (November 2022). And that's the claim (aka the most they can possibly get), what they'll get depends on how much money the liquidation process raises.

>What is this fixation on "virtue signaling"?
Beats me, I am not the one doing it.

>And why do you think "California" - a vast state of 40M people - collectively "virtue signals" anything?
Because they vote for politicians who pledge to stop crude oil production but won't pledge to stop the CO2-heavy activities (such as jet travel) that guzzle the products that crude oil produces (such as jet fuel). In other words, they want their state to appear virtuous on a certain issue (to the most naive people who don't think things through the slightest) even though it's actually not.

>And what do you think they think they're gaining in doing so?
Relieving the guilt that every well-off "progressive" individual is apparently required to have, without having to bear any significant cost to address the cause of said guilt (in our case, California's contribution to climate change). For example, taxing jet fuel at the same rates gasoline and diesel are taxed at the gas station pump would greatly reduce the CO2 footprint of California's tourism industry, but that would greatly damage California's tourism industry, so we can't have that, can we? So, let's instead stop crude oil extraction in the state to appear to be doing something, that'll show the big bad oil companies that... uhm... produce the jet fuel our state's tourism industry needs.

>It's just weird.
I agree, anyone putting 1 minute of thought into the whole thing finds virtue-signalling to be moronic (see previous paragraph). But that assumes people can think for themselves, which isn't always the case.

>Whenever I see somebody use the term "virtue signaling" I always read it not as an outward condemnation but as an inward defensiveness.
Riiight.. read the previous paragraph again.

On a semi-related note, most people greatly underestimate how much jet travel affects their CO2 footprint. For example, an A320 flying from New York City to Los Angeles achieves a fuel economy of 97 mpg (US) per seat (see Wikipedia), which sounds good but isn't once you factor in the distances covered. Using our previous example, 2475 miles between those two cities gives us about 25.5 gallons, aka 51 gallons with the return flight, so flying such distances just two times a year (with return) for tourism purposes is 102 gallons. For comparison, the tank of a Toyota Yaris is 11.6 gallons, so you could enough to fill up a Toyota Yaris about 9 times instead. But this won't prevent people from thinking they have a low CO2 footprint because they have a Prius (while they're jet-traveling all the time).

California could easily tax all that jet fuel at the same rates they tax gasoline and diesel at the pump, all they have to do is integrate the tax in the airport fees, but this would kill their tourism industry, so better virtue-signal about how allowing crude oil extraction to produce said jet fuel is "wrong" instead.

Note: A 737-300 burns 35% more than that and an A320neo is 15% better, but you get the picture.

Which is the point the other commenters are making: They are profiting as a state from jet-fuel-guzzling activities such as tourism, but at the same time they want to virtue signal that allowing crude oil extraction to produce said jet fuel is "wrong".

I need some evidence (aka a proof-of-concept program) that GPGPU can be done with WebGL (and by GPGPU I mean not just perform the compute but get the output data to the system main memory and then uploaded to another server) before I buy into that. I mean, you sound so sure in your comment, you probably have done it before.

Then why was it the high-end GPUs that got scalped the most by cryptominers during the crypto boom?

Again, the company mentioned in the article doesn't develop any AI algorithms themselves, they lease computing resources to others.

HIVE? Is that an initialism? Also, imagine comparing slavers with businesses using their computers as they see fit.

The company mentioned in the article doesn't do any AI themselves, they just lease computing resources to others.

At least MS, Sony, and Nintendo typically sell the console at cost prices (or even at a loss once R&D and firmware development costs are taken into account) and make their money from game sales, Apple gets a huge margin from the sale of the hardware and each software sale afterwards. If I pay for the full cost of the hardware, I should be able to install software on it without going through a tollbooth, dammit!

But I agree, it's a silly distinction (between game consoles and smartphones/tablets/laptops/desktops) which shouldn't exist, especially considering that MS, Sony, and Nintendo aren't legally obligated to sell the hardware at cost prices. I mean, didn't product dumping use to be illegal? Because that's what the entire game console market is: Dump the hardware and make it back from the software distribution monopoly you have on the hardware. Didn't attempting to create monopolies (with or without the assistance of product dumping) use to be illegal too?

Because WebGL only does graphics while WebGPU allows for GPU compute capabilities (which can be used for cryptocurrency mining, attempts to solve CAPTCHAs etc). Of course, JavaScript can do the above, but GPUs can do them more efficiently, which makes the whole effort worth it from the side of the malicious actor paying for the ad slot.

Ideally, the user will have to provide consent for access to the GPU by JavaScript running on webpages, as is already the case for microphone, camera, location, and filesystem access (aka file uploads).

The counter-argument to this is that if browsers are intended to "reduce Windows to a poorly debugged set of device drivers" (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen), the software running inside those browsers needs to have access to the GPU. Ideally, the user will have to provide consent for that to happen, as is the case for microphone, camera, location, and filesystem access (uploads).