Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:BMW wants spyware (Score 1) 129

If you're trusting the edge of that cliff to actually be right at the red line on your camera, you're going over anyway.

More to the point, it doesn't take a $6k computer with access to lock everything in your car behind a paywall just to get a video feed from the back of the car to somewhere on the dash. It takes a $20 camera and a $50 dumb display (and that would in most cases give a significantly higher quality image than the garbage auto manufacturers are using).

Comment Re:Total BS (Score 1) 129

There is a reason not to have both - Because there's absolutely no reason volume needs to go anywhere beyond a pot inside the radio. The entire rest of the car doesn't need to know or be able to override the physical position of that pot.

The same is true for virtually all features that don't directly affect the operation of the engine itself (and even most of those!). Even when we're talking about something like power windows or HVAC, the buttons don't need to do anything more than physically bridge the dumb-as-shit DC power bus going to the corresponding motor.

We're building modern cars as a giant ball of points-of-failure glued together with software. Software that can fail, can lag, can ignore us when the manufacturer would prefer we listen to their ads. And that the real "cost" here - Nothing to do with $0.25 knobs and everything to do with locking core features behind a paywall.

Ad-sponsored is fine for "free" services like broadcast TV and mobile games. When I'm paying mid-five-digits to own something, BMW can fuck right off with this rent-seeking!

Comment Shocked it was ever that high (Score 3, Insightful) 57

Sorry, 38% of people support them, or merely don't hate them passionately enough to commit several felonies destroying them on sight? I find it hard to believe anyone on the correct side of the thin blue line actually wants this garbage.

And that's not even touching on the blatant fourth amendment violation going on, which I don't expect Joe Average to even recognize much less care about. Who wants Uncle Sam or his proxies watching their every move?

Comment Re:News for nerds (Score 1) 129

Gallant forms a partnership with a preexisting top STEM university, buys them a few new tech toys, and sets up a scholarship to promote people going into field-X.

Goofus forms a partnership with the University of Phoenix, burns two billion on a giant faux-gold plaque of his name, then rants about wokeness when nobody sane enrolls.

Five points if you can spot the difference.

Comment Re:Wut? (Score 2) 43

If the government is doing something illegal, they just stop.

No they don't, who's gonna stop 'em?

So your thesis is that injunctions against the government are simply ignored?

Ignored... not so far, not quite. Stretched right to the limit, and maybe a bit beyond ("The plane was already in the air, we didn't know that verbal court orders had to be obeyed"), then emergency-appealed direct to SCOTUS, which quickly stays the injunction and then sits on the case for 6-9 months and then often rules that the issue is now moot... that has happened. A lot.

And "simply ignored" could very well still happen if Trump thinks it's important enough. He'll just issue an order (an official act, for which he has full immunity) and pre-emptively pardon the people who carry it out. So far the administration has decided not to cross that line, but if/when it happens, the only people who will be surprised are the ones who aren't paying attention.

Then there are the other cases where there is no injunction because the courts have ruled that only Congress has standing to sue (impoundment, emoluments, etc.), and the bootlicking GOP has declined. In those cases, the government can just violate the law with impunity until/unless Congress grows a spine.

Plus there are the cases where the government has committed outright crimes which only the DoJ is in a position to prosecute, and they're just declining. In the case of the Venezuelan boats the DoJ's inaction gives the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, and they could prosecute (including prosecuting Trump), but the Trump administration is already enacting sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors and if push comes to shove there's the Hague Invasion Act which would authorize Trump to invade the Netherlands to retrieve US personnel held by the ICC. So, the ICC isn't going to do anything.

"Who's gonna stop 'em?" is a legitimate question.

Comment Re:When You Fork From Reality... (Score 1) 35

Everyone is misunderstanding the intent behind this. The key phrase in TFA is "unlicensed AI output".

Music charts don't measure popularity, they do their damnedest to create it. From the famous RIAA payola scandal (which very much still happens, it's just structured slightly differently to remain legal) to the latest breakout nepo-baby somehow charting in the top ten despite nobody ever having heard of them the day prior - The various recording industry groups exist to promote their members - who are not the actual artists - and couldn't care less about accuracy.

There's nothing human about "the machine" (now an oddly ironic description) fearing AI generated music because it very much is an existential threat to them. I'm neither a fanboy nor hater of AI, but it won't be long before it doesn't suck and these whores can no longer control the market.

Comment Re:I actually use em-dashes now. (Score 1) 116

Linux uses [ctr]+[alt]+[shift]+[u] followed by 2014 then [enter] — what a mess, and I can never remember it and just try the [alt] + #### which winds up triggering tabs and other crap.

My previous reply was unnecessarily snarky, but I have to point out the "Linux" uses no such thing. GNOME, perhaps? I'm currently running KDE and Ctrl+Alt+Shift+u doesn't do this. Maybe it would if I changed the right setting.

Basically any "here's how you do that" advice is going to be very platform-dependent -- I just use a pair of hyphens. An actual em dash looks nicer, but not that much nicer. Though "—" is pretty easy on /., at least.

Comment Re:Broke the law you say? (Score 3, Interesting) 43

Yes - "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

We live in a world where everyone on the planet, on every side of the issue, knows perfectly well 34-time felon and adjudicated sexual assailant Donald J. Trump is at the very least a pedo rapist, a corrupt and incompetent businessman who managed to bankrupt the licenses-to-print-money that are casinos, and was quite possibly Epstein's boss rather than merely a prolific client of the largest human sex trafficking operation known to modern history. And yet somehow, his base is willing to draw a line in the sand over some mythical official release of the Epstein files. The same Epstein files that would 1) completely exonerate him if his story is true, and 2) have already been sufficiently released and/or leaked prior to redactiongate to eliminate any reasonable presumption of innocence.

This is a relatively minor retaliation case. Unless Kegsbreath needs a distraction from his next drunken compromise of opsec, this ruling will be publicly acknowledged with some whining, then privately ignored anywhere it matters. It's a hefty uphill battle to ever "prove" Anthropic doesn't get a particular contract in violation of Lin's ruling.

Comment Re:Not really (Score 1) 116

1) Chatbots do NOT write well. They copy mediocre professional prose. That is not good writing.

Without getting into the question of good or bad, chatbot prose is quite distinct from most professional prose. There are lots of common patterns in AI prose that are fairly rare to nonexistent in human-written prose.

2) For this reason, it is hard to tell them from mediocre professional prose.

Definitely not. Once you've read enough of it, AI prose isn't just easy to distinguish, it's impossible to miss. It's a very definite and unique style.

Comment Re:The long-term impact of this on the US (Score 2) 189

Is this just something fascist autocrats do?

Fascism doesn't necessarily try to burn down science; Hitler did eject (and murder) a lot of Jewish scientists for being Jewish, but his regime was generally quite pro-science otherwise. Other autocratic regimes were also quite pro-science, once established. The USSR poured a lot of money into science. Not as much as the US but that was mostly because the USSR didn't have as much money to pour.

The regimes that reject science are populists and autocrats who are just establishing their power. Populism is fundamentally about rejection of influential and powerful elites, and the intelligentsia is both elite, because by definition it's a tiny and hard-to-enter group, and influential, because it's full of smart people who can give good policy advice within their areas of expertise. Populists don't necessarily need to eject the scientists and other academics, but they need to be seen bringing them under control. Trump doesn't want to shut Harvard down, he wants Harvard to bend to his will and, more importantly, be seen bending to his will.

Of course, to the extent that a government succeeds in disempowering and controlling the intelligentsia, it also drives them away and deprives itself of the benefits of their work.

Autocratic regimes in the making, whether populist or not, also seek to disempower the intelligentsia because they need to destroy the previous centers of power to solidify their own power. This is why most of the Communist revolutions imprisoned or killed all of the university professors right off. Some went a lot further; the Khmer Rouge basically murdered anyone with any post-secondary education, including all of their schoolteachers which, uh, didn't bode well for the future.

In the modern day, populism and autocracy tend to coincide because democracy has basically won as the default way any regime holds legitimacy. Most of the autocratic regimes today are at least notionally democratic, even if the elections are somewhat rigged and even if the autocrat uses their control of the media to control public opinion in their favor. Anti-elitism is basically necessary to retain autocratic power in a democracy because it's impossible to do without lying a lot, and that means you have to suppress people who seek truth. That means academics and journalists must be discredited and disempowered.

So, it's definitely something that autocratic populists do, because it's essential to their ability to gain and retain power. The long-term effects countries who go this way are predictable.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. -- Seymour Papert

Working...