I'm pretty sure that Amazon is one of those institutions that's all-in on AI so they can join in the attempts to take over every business in the country.

Maybe they should just say "We're upping our prices because of our own greed and lust for power, just not in the usual way."

That's why he said "That makes it usually cheaper to use a non-HEPA filter but a higher air throughput rate."

It's a tradeoff, like almost everything in life. Whether his "usually" is correct depends mostly on who wants to buy the system, and only they can tell.

C++ has developed at lot over the last 20 years, and my understanding from C++ programmers is that there are now safe alternatives to virtually everything that had to be done using unsafe code in the past. So as long as you restrict yourself to those modern features, you can produce entirely safe C++, C++ that's as safe as Rust.

The problem with C++ is more that you have no idea what you're getting when someone drops a C++ source code bomb on you. It might be written using safe idioms, it might be using unsafe features but in a safe way. I wouldn't start a new project in C++, but I understand why someone like the GP might propose it as a way to start a project to increase security of an existing C program.

He's not looking at it the wrong way.

You're essentially saying "But a technology that does this would be very valuable!"

Yeah, no shit. So would a technology that turns lead into gold. Or that can tell whether some unwatermarked text is LLM generated or not.

Like both of those cases, it's just not possible. C needs to be translated to Rust by someone who knows the intent of the programmer, as the GP pointed out. Most of the time that's not possible to automate. There are far too many edge cases.

In C a string is an array of chars. And chars are often used as a byte type because before the second ANSI standard, char *was* the byte type. So every time you see char a[256] you MAY be looking at something intended to hold a string, but you also MAY be looking at something intended to hold series of bytes. You may think that because someone wrote something that maybe even included a string initializer that you're dealing with a string, but the developer may well be treating it as something else.

Your very example is why this kind of thing isn't automatable without a huge level of hand holding.

The best anyone can do to make "safe C" is to emulate capabilities and make it do that. Which is chronically slow. And the reality is that even capabilities aren't a panacea, because C really is just that bad. You'd get rid of some classes of error, but UB means you'd almost certainly introduce a whole set of bugs from programmers unaware how big an issue UB is, and who assume ultimately memory is just a big byte array, and some of those errors may well be security holes.

You miss the point completely. The technology is there and unstoppable. Cutting down one company doesn't destroy the technology. Killing Napster didn't kill the technology, it just spread it around, decentralized it, then there were thousands of sites to control, and they never did manage to do that, did they? Killing Flock will do exactly the same.

Killing Flock won't kill the concept or the capability and more than demolishing Napster stopped music copying. I bet within 5 years, this scanning will be common in most dashcams and phone apps will be available.

Lashing out in anger without having a plan or knowing your target is juvenile.

And you think the fact that carbon dioxide has steadily increased over the past 150 years or as we pump a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a coincidence? You honestly believe that there is zero connection between pumping gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and there being gigatons more carbon dioxide in the air than pre-industrial times? Completely unrelated events?

Whoops -- accidentally moderated it. Undoing...

Maybe you should stop panicking lie a wee baby and think from the other end: things are working as well as they can, and the problem is a lot bigger than just snapping your fingers and hoping a genie shows up.

Fabs are expensive and big, and can't be built overnight. Even stupid ordinary homes take months to build, and fans are thousands of times bigger with thousands of times the utility requirements.

It's taxpayer money. Means they'll burn through it all the faster.

> What you're not considering is that the manufacturers are building fab capacity like crazy right now.

Which they'll shutter or repurpose if the demand plummets. You think they're going keep those factories churning out memory chips if prices drop significantly?

At the end of the day they have to make a profit. Making a bunch of memory chips with a profit of $-1 per chip is not making a profit.

It just means Gemini will start being rude and will refuse to try to help anyone with a question.

No. The hardware being built for AI is basically using hardware that more closely resembles graphic cards minus the DisplayPort output than anything you can pick apart to insert in your PC. Even the memory modules are completely un-DIMM like.

At best, supply will return to pre-AI levels, but that'll just mean that memory reduces in cost to somewhere between today's absurd prices and Trump's post-tariff prices. The chances of it being reduced to Biden levels is pretty low.

Memory is going to be expensive for the foreseeable future. And all because of what's essentially a con job, an attempt to take over every substantial business in America by making their own employees unable to understand what it is they do, that nobody's prepared to do anything about.

If it's an AI data center (which is generally what people are concerned about the massive growth of) responsible for 911, then you're going to have a bad day whether powered or not.

The obvious solution here is to run the data centers in reverse. Basically feed them long winded manipulative slop, and have them convert it into the original art. This will mean the centers will then start generating power instead of using it up.

It's so obvious I can't believe nobody's thought of it before. We could probably solve global warming if we did this.