Are you saying the FCC can't withdraw certification of a device at a later date?
There needs to be an enabling authority to do so. I merely quoted relevant bits of legislation the FCC itself cited and neither impose any recertification requirements for software updates. The only nexus is software changes (e.g. radio firmware) that impact characteristics of the transmitter.
If you set your edge device up in a layer 2 bridging state, is it still a "router"?
I have always reconfigured my ISP provided equipment into this state so that my equipment can do the actual routing.
The FCC's asserted authority is contingent on certifications for the wireless radios. They can't do shit if there is no radio.
The FCC will now allow foreign manufacturers to provide not just minor security fixes and changes, but also more major software and firmware updates that could affect router functionality, which previously required additional FCC review.
The FCC has no authority to do any of this. The mechanism they were using to ban foreign routers is withholding FCC certification. If the device is already sold that horse has left the stable. The cited references are explicitly about the hardware (e.g. radio and radio firmware) not software changes.
"A new application for an equipment authorization shall be filed whenever there is a change in the design, circuitry or construction of an equipment or device for which an equipment authorization has been issued,"
"Changes to the software installed in a transmitter that do not affect the radio frequency emissions do not require any additional filings and may be made by parties other than the holder of the grant of certification."
Also, anything sounds big when you put it in gallons. Doesn't sound so big when you mention that's 92 acre feet, the amount used by less than 20 acres / 8 hectares of alfalfa per year. Or when you mention that a typical *closed loop* 1GW nuclear reactor uses 6-20 billion gallons of cooling water per year (once-through uses 200-500 billion gallons, though most of that is returned, whereas closed loop evaporates it)
I don't think it has anything to do with that. As soon as I saw the headline, my mind went "cohort study". And sure enough, yeah, it's a cohort study. Remember that big thing about how wine improves your health, and then it turned out to just be that people who drink wine tend to be wealthier and thus have better health outcomes? And also, the "sick quitter" effect, where people who are in worse health would tend to stop drinking, so you ended up with extra sick people in the non-wine group? Same sort of thing. This study says they're controlling for a wide range of factors, but I'd put money on it just being the same sort of spurious correlations.
If the MRI reports are mixed between patients due to hacks, it could lead to incorrect medical decisions. You still want some level of security. While MRI don't expose you to radiation, CT and xray machines do, and that requires proper security.
MRIs can be dangerous too... wouldn't want to be in an MRI during a magnetic quench.
I think everything over 10 or 15 years should be ripped out of the current kernel to keep the bloat down, if someone has older hardware they can run an older version of the kernel or find an older distro version, there are old versions still available for download
No thanks, half of the systems around here are over a dozen years old.
This has been an ongoing marketing ploy for years. Hype new AI model only to find out it is at best only marginally better than previous iteration.
People don't typically boo tools they know how to use effectively.
So you have no data or evidence to support your conclusions and your "use effectively" criteria is simply begging the question? After all a tool you can't use effectively sucks and one that can be used effectively doesn't? Right?
Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?
Does your strawman apply? I don't think so. At the moment there's no evidence that AI is taking any jobs in any meaningful way, beyond a few select industries, and even in those industries the jobs often remain for those who know how to use the AI tools.
The context of the commencement speech is the future rather than the present. If in the future AI takes jobs why would the taking of jobs not also include taking of gained jobs?
The only people unemployable are those who are booing the thing they never bothered to learn.
How do you even know what they bothered to learn?
Every technological change in history has caused job losses someplace and job gains somewhere else.
Does this still apply when those jobs gained someplace else are also filled by machines?
This speaker is annoying. Gratuitous heaping of praise on Bozos. Glorifying tech bro style fearless disruption idiocy. Passive aggressive responses to audience.
My favorite was "only a few years ago AI was not a factor in our lives" being met with cheers. Fucking priceless.
"We have been through this before, these industrial revolutions" no actually this is inductive fantasy that ignores underpinning reality. There can be no new opportunities for anyone when dead labor is *also* able to fill any and all new roles as effectively as people. When AI is like importing an alien from another planet that can do everything you can do but better and for free there are no new opportunities for anyone.
You. Vile. Piece. of. filth. 168 kids at a school that they double? trilple? tapped?
LOL while there is still no credible evidence of double taps I had joked about assertions of triple taps previously. Funny as shit to see people reaching for it now because hell why not. Heck just make it a quadruple tap just to be safe. Everything is much easier once one frees themselves from the burdensome chains of reality.
That was intended as MURDER.
While there is also no credible evidence for this why not just go with it anyway? The New York Times claims to have spoken with people with relevant knowledge who said it was a targeting mistake caused by outdated information but they could just be wrong or lying.
They were everyone knows this. You didn't debunk anything.
Why do you think they weren't
Was was the enriched uranium and all the centrifuges for?
Why has it always been a red line to give up nukes?
Iran has obviously been deliberately working toward a breakout capability. This is evidenced by self declared 60% enrichment (post US JCPOA violation) level (observed 83% levels), massive proliferation of centrifuges in underground facilities and parallel development of nuclear capable ballistic missiles at scale. Since war broke out there have been public admissions of pre-war intent for nuclear capability from within the regime itself.
The arguments are in differentiation between developing a capability that enables future production of nukes and walking a path intentionally engineered to be as short as possible to actually producing nukes.
As time went on this path shrinks while cost to prevent breakout by force increases. Arguments staking opposing perspectives increasingly become the province of pointless pedantry and word games.
Trump was certainly reckless to violate the JCPOA which capped enrichment to less than 4% until 2030. It is certainly possible a new deal could have been reached to extend the cap and allow more time to work to change of regime behavior. Now it is too late for that and we all have to live with the world as it is not as it should have been.
"I just put my models on a usb drive then plug said drive into the printer."
You must have a lot of spare time on your hands.
"It works great locally" - Um, no it doesn't?
1 Word = 1 Millipicture
