AI is a metric fuckton of cons and a tiny pinch of pros. Typically we allow bad things to happen if they come with a greater amount of good, not the other way around.

So.... Russia has bio labs?

I don't think people looking for entertainment are going to pay to watch a propaganda hit piece.

Some scientific studies have found that permanent DST is about 2/3rds as good as permanent standard time:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/...

And others have found that permanent DST is the worst option:

https://www.berkshireeagle.com...

Considering Trump is pushing this it's probably lucky that he's not manually adjusting the time zone to suit how he feels with no warning.

Linux market share changing every month is a know issue in steam... steam do sampling for each month and we get statistics based on that sampling. But when China market, with a huge amount of users, get more samples, windows (pirated, so both older and latest version) increase, as hardware more common on that market. China have very low linux numbers. When it get less samples, windows share decrease and so linux also increase. There is also another problem, China have lot of internet cafés, where many people use them to play games... and they "reinstall" windows many times, automatically even between users. So you have many steam installs and startup, make it more probable of getting the question of being sampled even the same day, as it show on startup, while many people open steam and leave it running. So while valve already tried to balance that a little, Chinese market keep skewing the steam statistics. I think that steam should simply workaround most of these problems by publishing data per country or at least continent, but this statistics are done each month and not really critical, they don't really put lot of work to improve it.

TLDR: China uses mostly windows, when Chinese language increase in steam, linux share drops. The reverse also is true. Not really a issue with people leaving linux or games. Long term data is the one that really show tendency

As we used to say in the security profession, the weakest link is not the software, or the hardware, it's always the wetware.

Because unlike software-based solutions, it can successfully hide the information from the user (barring any hardware vulnerabilities). The problem isn't just that hidden information can exist on the system, the problem is that the root user can't access the information. Being able to access the information is what made DRM crackable. Without that, it could be possible to make a DRM system that actually works, which would be the worst invention in the history of computing. If the user can clear it but not see it, that does nothing to make that less viable.

No strawman, it happens almost every time I express concern at the possibility of TPM enabling a working DRM system.

Anyone care to once again reassure me how TPM, a system for hiding information from a computer's user regardless of privilege level, can't be used for DRM again?

"There use to be news, with editors that would filter out the wrongthink"
FTFY

Wading through the garbage, one does find a few gems from time to time. Not unfounded rumours, but verified stories with links to sources that the regular newspapers do not print for some reason, or discussions and opinions outside of your own bubble. And it becomes clear how much of a bubble mainstream publications have become. Or maybe they always were...

Just be evil . . .

sure, because it needs no servers, no dedicated personal, no maintenance... and the electricity cost rising, for sure it costs more than £20 :D

Not teleology, I'm still talking about an emergent system. It's just a question of what sort of characteristics end up having a lower chance of ending up as dead ends. Adaptability, including characteristics that improve evolutionary adaptability is a characteristic that helps avoid dead ends. The simple, middle-school version of evolution basically has a model where mutations occur at random. However we already know of systems where organisms have evolved so that at least certain mutations are promoted. For example, spots on animals actually happen through standard mutations that happen at particular ratios. Basically, the organism evolved so that some of its cells always mutate in certain ways. Basically genetic instability and mosaicism, and those characteristics are evolved. That's just a sideshow to what I'm talking about though, and it turns out that the word for what I'm talking about is evolvability. So, things like stress evolved mutagenisis (beyond just epigenetic factors). Some species are prone to chromosomal crossover during gamete combination from sexual reproduction. There's also evolved tolerances to the effects of gene duplication. There's another neat one I just learned about during this discussion, heat shock proteins.

Anyway, you are right that lots of things that are not biological evolution get conflated with it. Of course, that's very tricky because biological evolution is a reaction to environment, and social systems, for example, provide selection pressure, so these systems can co-evolve. A parting thought about Lamarckian "evolution" of course is that, as wrong as he was in general, in some specific ways, his ideas actually do work (for example stress related epigenetic factors that pass on down through generations) in very limited ways. Also, it's very clear that the famous mouse experiment could have actually worked in the end (though it was actually conducted to disprove him). The reason for this is that the experiment went on for 22 generations (though some sources say just 5). The thing that always bothered me about that is that mice have 5 to 8 pups per litter. Even just 5 generations is hundreds of mice, but 22 generations would be what, quadrillions? So, obviously mice would be discarded from every generation, and human bias would be almost impossible. If the bias was based on tail length the tails might actually get longer or shorter depending on the specific bias. In the actual experiment though, apparently the selection protocol was for health, vigor, and fertility. So, even if it didn't affect the tails, it almost certainly would have been selection pressure for other traits. Not to mention that he was almost certainly inbreeding, so that would have had effects as well. Of course, I should note that most criteria for health that would be used in such an experiment would probably increase overall size, which probably would mean that tails would grow proportionately.

Anyway, sorry to ramble, but the potential unintended consequences of those experiments has always been fascinating. Just in general how difficult it is to actually predict every outcome of playing around with emergent processes like evolution/natural selection.

lol. Every time someone points out that the USA is just as much of a repressive propagandist as China, some guy gets butthurt and jumps in with some highly specific thing that apparently makes it totally different.

OK. Good point. There is a problem, but it's not the cut bananas going brown too quickly.