I mean, I suppose I'm not sure. The UK had a similar system of course. But what I don't know if more robust systems actually do exist. My feeling is that once the country moves towards tearing it all up, actual laws are barely harder than convention.

It's a feeling I have, though, not a fact or anything.

I think it's also encouraged. The term is flooding the zone. Every few days there new deeply irrational randomness. But it keeps changing and churning to keep the previous thing out of the news. Makes it easy to bury the really nasty stuff that's permanent.

Enjoy the probably deepest recession ever that this will cause

They'll blame it on the democrats. And woketrans.

The problem is that our government has evolved well beyond what was spelled out in the constitution and said evolution was largely based on gentlemen's agreements and precedent to maintain the spirit of separation of powers. While this is sloppy as fuck what's happening now should not be celebrated.

I used to agree, but I'm not sure I do now. The world is too complex and there are too many loopholes for laws for this kind of thing to be iron clad. For example, take the Supreme court. In terms of iron clad laws the ones on not bribing public officials are actually pretty clear. But they ruled that a gratuity to a judge for a ruling you like isn't a bribe so they are now free to collect their bribes.

Society can only work if not too many people are trying to break it at the same time. Even with tighter laws, if enough people with enough power want them gone, they become nothing but a piece of paper.

Maybe you just suck at it. Coding with AI assistance is a learned skill, and if you don't know how to do it you may very well get bad results.

It's possible, but the problem is the AI writes buggy code, and invents APIs which don't exist. Tose are fairly widely reported problems.

Not disagreeing with your argument, but even if all of that could be fixed, fundamentally any anti-cheat that isn't going to be defeated relatively easily needs some sort of privileged access to stop you modifying the game or running other software that interferes with it in some way. That necessarily requires a degree of access to your system that is dangerous, so anti-cheat software will rightly be told where to shove itself by any operating system with a security model worthy of that title.

I don't see the Linux community ever accepting that it's OK to deliberately undermine that security model just for anti-cheat, as a matter of principle. With so many games even at the highest levels already running very well on Linux, I doubt it will ever be a big deal for most Linux users, even keen gamers, to play the 90+% of titles that work and skip the few that insist on more intrusive anti-cheat/DRM measures either.

It sure would be nice to reach a critical mass where the games companies actively catered for that market, though, instead of mostly relying on tech like Proton to make what is essentially a Windows game run OK.

These days, though, the training part is outsourced to the education system. And that's just dumb in so many ways.

Never mind apprentices, even just normal on-the-job training. Personally, I've always been a fan, and if I can do it in a tiny startup, then bigger companies certainly can.

You can get a huge amount of good code out of LLM 's if you know what you're doing. An experienced programmer can just fly.

This does not appear to be holding up in practice, at least not reliably.

https://developers.slashdot.or...

Clearly the value being generated is very large. Not just my perception but in the opinion of the most wealthy investors.

You may have thought tulip bulb growing was generating very large value too...

The machines are already able to do most coding and in some cases all of it.

Again, not my experience. I'm inveterately lazy, and have tried it repeatedly. It's... OK I guess. Definitely faster for some stuff, seems more to actually slow me down on others. Trouble is you never know which in advance.

Unfortunately, there is another possible explanation for the emphasis on TPM that is much more sinister. It's possible that Microsoft and its allies are making a concerted effort to lock down desktop clients in the same way that the two major mobile ecosystems are locked down, to kill off general purpose computing and reduce the desktop PC to a machine that can only run approved apps and consume approved content. It already happens with things like banking apps that you can't run if you choose to root your phone to arrange the privacy and security according to your wishes instead of the vendor's or OS developer's. It already happens on open source desktops, where streaming services will deliberately downgrade the quality of the content they serve you when on the same plan you're already paying for they'd serve higher quality streams to approved (read: more DRM-friendly) devices, and where a few games won't run because their anti-cheat software behaves like malware and the free platforms treat it accordingly.

I am worried that we may be entering a make-or-break period for the survival of general purpose computing with the artificial demise of Windows 10. If the slow transition to Windows 11 as people replace their hardware in the coming years means almost everyone ends up running Windows or macOS on desktops and Android or iOS on mobile devices, there won't be enough incentive for developers of apps and creative content to support any other platform, and all the older versions that didn't have as much built-in junk and all the free alternatives will be reduced to irrelevant background noise because they won't support things that users want to do any more. Your own devices will force updates, ads, reboots, AI-driven "help", covert monitoring and telemetry, any other user-hostile junk their true masters wish upon you, and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Governments should be intervening on behalf of their people at this point because the whole system is blatantly anti-competitive and user-hostile, but most of the Western nations are either relying on the absurd valuations in the tech sector to prop up their otherwise precarious economies or watching with envy while their more economically successful allies do that. So our best hope is probably for the legacy platforms to hold out long enough for some free platform(s) to reach critical mass. And frankly, there aren't many realistic paths to get there. Our best hope might be for Valve/Steam to show that many of those Windows 10 boxes in people's homes can now play most of the same games if they shift to Linux and possibly run some of them better than on Windows as well.

As they are trained, general purpose LLMs are really just search engines with some aggregation and adaption capabilities.

I think you undersell the aggregation/adaptation part: plain search engines don't simply make shit up. They're more like search engines with a massive, ad-hoc compression scheme on the data which feeds the results through a huge aggregation system.

Then your hands are just as dirty.

Problem is people won't stop trying to kill you, take your stuff and destroy your culture and way of life just because you don't happen to like it. Do you also criticise Ukrainians developing new munitions to repel Putin's troops?

If not where do you draw the line?

Well, shit. My phone are my reply which was quite long. So sorry my second go will be worse.

The EMF requirement is yours not mine. I don't see why an emf of 0 is a problem. Just a special case of complex impedances. But given your requirement capacitors fit.
.
I've also never heard the term "series loop" before, and that only holds for a pair. What would you call it work 3, 4,5 or more capacitors connected how I specified as parallel?

When you say"no it only behaves that way", that's what I was talking about. A paralleled set of capacitors can be plugged in and behaves as one capacitor too am external circuit. Circulating currents or not ate part of that. A parallel R And C behave as a single complex Z externally, and certainly have circulating currents even in the ideal case.

As for describing it with a single capacitor, this is where pedantry falls because it goes all the way down.You can't describe a single real capacitor as an an ideal point lumped element. So one night as well say "good luck describing any real capacitor as a single capacitor". To preclude one and not the other you have to pick a very specific level of approximation to make your definition of parallel.

Though this of course is where the OPs answer comes from. A pair of ideal capacitors connected in parallel is a single capacitor. The ideal model doesn't work for only having the left half of a capacitor charged in isolation. Or alternatively implies infinite currents. But since it's not ideal...

Imagine you have R, C on series with a battery. R charges C too 10V and then C2 is connected in parallel with C. You are I presume on with that. Now let R get very large. At some point, say 10^12 ohms, it becomes indistinguishable from a cut wire. So at what point does it become not parallel?

On to the switches. I have a DC powered device with some input filtering, namely a couple of capacitors in a series loop with the pair of those forming a series loop with the rest of the circuit. Is that how I should describe it when off? I can assure you any EE would look at me like I had sprouted an extra head of I said that when the circuit was off, and parallel when on. It's the same circuit diagram after all!

It would be an ok point, but the trouble is just about everything you can say about Harris is about a thousand tribes worse with trump. He's the king of word salads.

I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.

It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.

So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.

From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.

An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.

Oh fair enough.