You're having the same confusion everyone else has at first and then gets around if they look into the issue long enough rather than dismissing it. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but it only sounds ridiculous because people tend to be ok with cognitively separating tech products from non-techproducts, but have a hard time applying the same logic to IOT devices because they grew up with all of those devices not having the same electronic/computational capabilities. Now that every device is a computer, it throws this distinction between tech and non-tech out the window. They're just thinking of them as "tech products", so you applied a use(playing music) that you associate with tech products to a product(a vacuum) that is made to perform an action(vacuuming) that doesn't require computation.

The new characteristic of these devices isn't that they're meant to be used for things you normally would use computers for, but rather that because they can now literally be computers, they can have parts that authenticate the same way as computers interacting with a network. At work, I sign into a domain account, which sends a kerberos ticket to a domain controller which sends a response that allows me to authenticate to the network. By means of smart-contract, I can't use the network without permission from someone else and can't make new hardware interact with it without first gaining permission from a certificate authority. Someone who watches some videos on youtube(or someone who has acquired great skill, depending on the network) could find a way around this, but they'd also risk some prison time. Similarly, there are devices now with parts that authenticate to each other. By means of smart contract, if you want to replace a part on your personal property, or perhaps sometimes even use your personal property for specific things, you may be required to have permission from someone else. Also similarly, if you want to buy some shady ukranian software or have some indepth skills, you may be able to actually do whatever you want with your personal property. Because of how our(I'm in the US) laws are written and managed, repairing someones device by replacing a part meant to authentication, much like a computer at my work finding a way to authenticate to the domain in a way not meant by kerberos, you could go to prison.

Non-computerized devices could be rare oddity in the future, possibly to our benefit, but it would be a radically life-changing development if personal property were a rare oddity, surely to our detriment.

It's used that way and in many more ways that are more general or adjacent to the original coined definition, but no, it's merely about how many transistors you fit. That's partially why Ray Kurzweil started using the term "law of accelerating returns". Yes, GPU prices are stupid high right now, but this has less to do with changes in the R&D of GPU's and more to do with the fact that the price of bitcoins can double faster than the number of foundries/fabricators dedicated to making GPU's or cryptocurrency asic can double, not to imply that you're incorrect about it being a real effect on price performance or anything.

Hey what's up, "Computer Operator" is my job title right now. I've been wondering if this is more immune to AI take-over since it's mostly just responding to alerts that are already automated. I will say though, that each one of my co-workers has commented on how developments and increased efficiencies have reduced headcount over the years.

There are a lot of good answers in here, so I wanted to just answer one small part of the "And why are Apple users so very loyal to Apple products" that I think is outside of the category that also answers all the other questions. From what I've seen of friends who are fans of Apple products, Apples habit of replacing more widely compatible solutions with proprietary ones forces people further into the Apple ecosystem. Having a lot of options can actually be stressful for people. After reflecting on some contexts in my life in which I go for familiar because I just can't be bothered to inspect new things, It's easier for me to see how someone so immersed in ownership of their I-life, that trying to step into a world of open protocols and standards without any intentional compatibility issues to restrict your choices can actually bring someone out of their comfort zone. Additionally, they've put themselves in a situation where some products they already own will no longer be compatible with their new product, which makes them feel like they have to make a decision to change their whole consumer life rather than just a change in the decision about one product. Staying with Apple just makes things simpler, which kind of fits in with the whole Apple theme.

Every time pull up slashdot, although I emphasize to other people the educational value, deep down I want to see some totally cyberpunk horror sounding headlines. Thanks for that.

Hmm, I'm a little worried now that I've struck some sort of oddly specific nerve, so I want to emphasize to you that this was not my intention. The difference between pasties and gaslighting in this context that qualifies pasties as slang but not gaslighting is that pasties have not become recognized jargon in the curriculum of any specific field of study. You could be right in saying "instances of bullying is better than using the slang term "gaslighting" even if it fits better for people who know that slang." in the sense that sometimes it's better to omit jargon when you consider the audience, but I make a point to distinguish one from the other in this context because it seems that this trend of seeing it as a niche cultural terminology frequently becomes another anti-intellectual not to learn a definition even when it fits most accurately(for some people).

Calling gaslighting slang is a bit like calling narcissism slang. Both are from works of fiction(I'll go ahead and call mythology fiction) but both have already worked their way into academia as a psychological phenomenon, regardless of whether or not one is perceived as a liberal over reacting buzzword.

This first of a trilogy(that I didn't know was part of a trilogy until I finished it) managed to get the slightly cyberpunk(or maybe cypherpunk) flavored noir mystery without actually being cyberpunk or having that typical cyberpunk "Hey look at me I'm a badass merc from an action movie" sort of part that I have to cringe through just because I like cyberpunk. I started to suspect that cicada 3301 could be at least partially inspired by it. I have a feeling this is something a lot of people have already read, definitely not some hidden gem, but I'm surprised a lot of the people who've read the sprawl trilogy have never heard of this.

No it'll be in the US. That way when were in the labor camps with them we can blame them for hogging all the labor. Damned foreigners. If we just get rid of them these labor camps would be the American dream.

I've been hearing people casually bring this up at parties as an example of the medical worlds effect on human evolution, so it's a little surprising to see that this could be just now making its way into actual science. I'm not going to say that it shouldn't be news if that is the case that this speculation just now made its way into academic circles, but we all know that some births via c section would have otherwise risked complications, and we all already know that babies who die before they grow up can't have children, so, again, it might be news, but feels a little out of place all the same.

I can see why it seems more ethereal when there's less of a concrete entity to point the finger at, and this accusation about how information disseminates has more attention on it now, but why media competitors would be without sufficient editing and fact checking is something that's been followed for a quite a while and is actually pretty comprehensively accounted for, probably best by Noam Chomsky when describing the phenomenon as a propaganda model. Because it's more complicated and because it's more a product of the environment of news corporations, private interests, and government, rather than specific entities you can point the finger at, it becomes more like attempting to point the finger at any one thing causing an economic crisis. To narrow it down to one answer that has to remain vague due to its large scope, the reason that media can't have the things it used to are that new trends, generally pioneered by 6 members of an oligopoly(or forced onto them by other conditions), forcing the rest of the non-privy companies to have to dramatically lower overhead, generally leaning them in a direction similar to those 6 entities, or, if desirable, causing a loss of money great enough for those businesses to be consumed through acquisitions and mergers which allow the new parent company to enforce this newer less fact oriented conduct(in the 90's I believe the oligopoly was 22 groups). The more complicated answer, as to what the trends are, can't really be explained in detail in something like an internet comment, but to just name one of the biggest ones, the 6 members of the current media oligopoly, shifted away from investigative journalism to obtain information and towards journalists developing special relationships that are sometimes unofficial, exclusive, or sought after as a commodity with PR employees. Because the number of PR employees working for the government and private interest put together whose job it is to give journalists info exceeds the number of journalists whose job it is to obtain info, this reduces overhead that forces competitors to have to similarly let go of investigative journalism to reduce overhead in order to keep from being forced out of business.

Judging from how many generalizations they've made, I wouldn't be surprised if they've created an amalgam concept of gaming in their wording that merely cake from the two generalizations that games are sometimes online, include mathematical elements, and "levels", which really sounds like an older person looking in from outside the world of gaming who remembers when levels were more common(side scrollers and such). Having been a gamer for quite a while, I've been surprised to see in online games like MMOs, the drive for success in a game can transfer someones interests from a fantasy(in a lotr sense of the word) world to a world of numbers to more accurately "game" the mechanics to better compete. This becomes more common in games like eve, less common in MMOs like wow, but the potential is still there.

Oh so... is this why the tor people always say it's better to have the whonix workstation in a qubes VM but still have to go through the whonix gateway VM on a completely separate machine? Which just leads me to another question: Is there a smaller attack vector in physical separation or is it just a different one? Or is the idea that you have to get through a physical machine to get to the workstation machine but then still get through the VM to dox fully? It would seem like just getting to the gateway pc would be enough because it's still a machine on the same network right?

As far as the vm's and Intel vs amd. I think I remember having more physical cores working better than virtual cores for vm's. Might want to look into that, because if so it would make amd the better choice.

The only maturity in the development of my sense of humor since high school, is that my propensity to spot dick jokes has taken an eerily transhumanist turn.