And on that subject... if you're in a movement that (1) has a "cult of tradition", longing to go back to an imagined former greatness and seeing progress as backtracking; (2) "rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity (but NOT rejection of industrial potency); (3) "cult of action for action's sake", such as attacks on modern culture and science even when the attacks are self-defeating; (4) "disagreement is treason"; (5) "fear of difference", often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants; (6) "appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups; (7) "obsession with a plot", such as a New World Order, Great Replacement Theory, Deep State, etc, (8) "at the same time too strong and too weak" - the enemy as simultaneously a massive oppressor with its claws ruthlessly in everything, yet also sniveling frail snowflakes; (9) "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" - if you oppose some favoured military action by you or your close allies, you too become the enemy to destroy; such regimes also strongly support military armament and expansionist policies (10) "Contempt for the weak", both within and between societies, with a strongly Social-Darwinist view on how the world should run; (11) "Everybody is educated to become a hero" - everyone is expected to sacrifice for the cause, with no sacrifice too great; (12) "Machismo" - holding "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality" (in our time, perhaps no focus could capture this locus better than the topic of trans people, though the new obsession over testosterone levels and "tradwives" certainly competes); (13) "Selective populism" - "The People", conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual, of which the leader holds himself out as the interpreter (though truly he alone dictates it); commonly used to deligitimize democratic institutions who they argue are "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people"; (14) "Newspeak" - catchphrases become mantras and thought-terminating cliches.

x ... ... If that sounds at all like a movement you're in, then yes, you're a fascist.

I realize that it's important to actually quantify it in detail, since trying to offer as little money as possible to obtain the required number of survey responses/test results/etc. is a pretty standard surveying technique; but it seems a little wild to expect people to treat $5 or maybe-$100 as identical(or $5 as preferable thanks to risk aversion) when any 'electronic gift card' that won't politely go straight into your bank account or the internal records of some vendor you actually use is essentially not real money at all.

The process would be more of a hassle; but I suspect you'd see at least some difference if you were using cash. There would still be the competing psychological effect of 'very mundane amount of money' vs. 'modest chance at enough to do something you hadn't planned to'; but $5 is actually worth $5; no paperwork, no tie to specific retailer, doesn't start charging you 25 cents a month after 3 months.

I have never seen any hint of CSAM on Bluesky. By contrast, Musk has *personally reinstated the accounts* of people who were distributing CSAM, like Dom Lucre.

Lol, if you think Bluesky is an echo chamber on the topic of Adobe's turn to AI... I can't think of any topic that more evenly divides the site's members than AI.

(And for the record, Bluesky is an Umberto Eco chamber, where we discuss semiotics and the latent characteristics of fascist movements ;) )

Does Microsoft understand consent? Choose one of the below

Yes.

Remind me in 3 days.

"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

But that means ramping up production in other countries, and that cannot be done in a matter of months, but years.

Additionally, there's no guarantee that the tariffs will go up against other countries, or if tariffs will go down against China.

The decisions of what to sell where and what to manufacture where cannot be made in this chaotic environment. Push come to shove, companies would be ok with tariffs going, I dunno, 500%, against X or Y country as long as they knew they would stay that way and that current tariffs in other countries do not change from week to week.

They require consistency to know how to plan and budget operations for each fiscal year.

PS. I really think Apple should diversify and spread its manufacturing plants more into South East Asia, and India, and perhaps LATAM. But this cannot be done overnight, and cannot be budgeted with the current tariff mania.

Raw quantity/day seems like a really weird metric to be assessing target processing on; and one that was probably at its highest during some barely transistorized period when it was still slide rules and saturation bombing with periodic estimates written up into reports on some early IBM dinosaur. The hit rate was probably atrocious; but if enough fragments go out small percentages add up.

If you are even talking about sensors, much less 'AI' you are implying some set of accuracy and prioritization metrics you have in mind: correctly identifying hostiles, including by type if they differ in value or significance, distinguishing between hostiles and technically hostile but marginal value decoys, hitting what you intended to hit vs. hitting nothing of interest vs. accidentally hitting something neutral or friendly; and so on. Unless you talk about your criteria there "55 per day" or "could reach 5000 per day" are almost wholly meaningless numbers. You'd also want greater detail on what opportunities you expect to enjoy by going faster and how much faster you need to get there.

For the very specific case of point defense it's fairly safe to assume that the answer is 'as fast as you can; but faster' given the speed of certain contemporary missiles; but are the vaguer improvements in 'targets' active combatants currently not getting air or artillery support used on them because target acquisition is backed up? Low priority discretionary targets who we are modestly sure about but don't have the reaper operator budget to bother following up on? Just blips on satellite photos that we were never planning to do anything about; but could automatically annotate before filing rather than not annotating before filing if we let the bot do it?

The genre of "AI Products" heavily tilted in the direction of low-effort garbage fires where the vendor just takes whatever they sold previously, tacks one of the more generic 'AI' operations('summarize this'/'expand this'/'here's a RAG chatbot that misleads users about the FAQs') on to some fields they probably should offer programmatically for integration purposes but may not; then a stiff price increase for this 'innovation'.

There's also a fair amount of...outright marketing...where outfits whose tools absolutely do rely on some sort of machine learning(like spam filtration or EDR anomaly detection) have been moved by some mixture of frothy hype and a lazy interest in not focusing on the hard problem by talking about 'adding enhanced AI features'; but just adding a summarization somewhere rather than doing anything that seems to move the needle on what you are actually paying them for.

There's a SOC I have to deal with that has gone hard in this direction: they were never very good at explaining why one thing got flagged and another didn't; or why a thing got flagged once when we knew that we had done the same thing on 500 endpoints. Now? They still either don't know or won't say when it comes to those important questions; but gosh if there isn't a summary of what some chatbot thinks about one of the binaries mentioned in the alert at the bottom of the email! 15-30% of them are internally inconsistent or at least somewhat nonsensical; most of the rest are just the blandest possible plagiarism of what virustotal and the top 10 or so Google hits say about the binary.

If your 'AI product' can be replicated by me just ctrl+c-ing some text from your old product and pasting it into a chatbot if I feel like it; it's not really an 'AI Product'; it's you charging me silly amounts of money for a really low value integration(often inferior to just an integration interface since I can't even re-point it to a different backend if I have ether performance or data governance concerns). And that's a lot of the people who thought that putting 'AI' in would somehow reignite the golden era of Sasshole hypebeast growth.

I assume that there are some outfits actually doing real work to try to fulfill actually nontrivial use cases; but the average 'AI Product' is not that; just the most half-assed exploitation of the fact that the software vendor has access to text in their program's UI or outputs and LLMs are good at delivering something that at least looks like a result if you hand it an arbitrary string and display whatever comes out. When being done as a box checking exercise it's at least an entire level beneath the people selling packaged reports for various products; who at least had to know about the structure of the data and so on to get meaningful results.

Good luck on that. They will get to get adminstrators' approvals according to https://slashdot.org/my/newuse... -- "New user registration is now approved by Slashdot administrators..."

I have no brain to rot. I am a zombie. :P

I'm not sure if enough people will care to make it worthwhile; but I'll be curious to see if, and how broadly, "Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2021" either gets cracked for redistribution or gets mined for patches.

It's basically Win10 21H2; but with the benefit of not having 'store'/appx to deal with; and with security support through 2032. MS makes a big deal about how you should super only use it for special purpose embedded devices; because what kind of sick retrograde weirdo would want an OS that just sits there doing what it does for a decade without a deluge of 'feature updates' to perturb things? but aside from making it a pain in the ass to get legitimate licenses for they offer few solid explanations for why people would actually see "just 21H2 that you don't have to bother with for years yet" as a bad thing.

For people with slightly newer hardware(enough to support the required CPU instructions; I assume TPM verification will just be stubbed out) the same argument could be made for win11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2024; which is basically win11 24H2 except it will shut up and just do its job, security updates only, until late 2034. Again, they make it a nuisance to license and assure you that you are a depraved enemy of 'modern' management for even wanting it; but a decade of the OS just getting nothing but security fixes sounds like a "don't threaten me with a good time" proposition to me.

I'd also be interested in whether there's an uptick in TPM fakery; or whether (while standardized in some respects) TPMs are too closely integrated with motherboard firmware to readily tack on. If you ignore pesky requirements like "physical tamper resistance" and "actual cryptographic-grade entropy" something that talks and acts like a TPM is a pretty unexciting microcontroller tacked onto the LPC bus, which isn't very demanding to interface with; and, since basically every hypervisor option going has the need to emulate TPMs for certain guest OSes there are FOSS software implementations(for x86 hosts, you'd need to port to your microcontroller of choice) you can examine if you don't want to work from the TCG specs.

If MS has a limited set of TPM vendor attestation keys that they count as 'real' TPMs emulating a TPM wouldn't help you much(though there are probably a lot of dead motherboards from 'business' machines that you could unsolder 'real' TPMs with infineon or similar attestation keys from to bodge into working systems); but if simply having something that talks like a TPM on the bus is good enough that would be a pretty accessible add-on.

Apple was far from first; it's not like the Game Boy came with SODIMM slots; but they do deserve a lot of 'credit' for attempting, and getting away with, both the use of soldered components where the margins are especially attractive (there are, at least, technical arguments in favor of soldered RAM just because it's really hard to get the more aggressive data rates, latencies, and bus widths at acceptable energy cost, if at all, with a bunch of extra distance and connectors in the signal path; but it's also true that the vendor pricing for RAM in models with soldered RAM is typically absurd vs. that of models with modular RAM; and the same is true of storage; with much weaker arguments in favor of soldered storage; both because a few lanes of PCIe is less demanding to route and because NAND gradually wears out under use); and the use of cryptographic pairing of components that would otherwise just need to speak a mutually intelligible protocol over physically compatible connectors.

They also tend to be on the fairly aggressively bad side in terms of how tightly integrated certain parts are and so how big(and expensive) FRUs are. That one was really prominent back when they were pretending that the 'butterfly' keyboard was actually a good idea: Your basic PC laptop's keyboard dies; that's maybe a $50 part(for first-party backlit keyboards); one or two ribbon cables to ZIF sockets; handful of screws and maybe a little spudger work to get it swapped out. With the Apple ones the keyboard was fused to the upper chassis in 50-odd places; so the replacement part was a $750 upper chassis. They do the same with bonded glass in LCDs; so damaged panels are a replacement of the entire upper lid; though consumer tier PC OEMs have, unfortunately, gone in the same direction. Business tier are still more likely to still just be panel swappable; more expensive because display panels just cost more than keyboards; but just a quick liberation of the panel from the eDP cable and you are back in.

I suspect it's because Framework's whole thing is greater levels of modularity and serviceability; which carry the same additional cost on both the low end and the high end variations; and which make other x86 laptops without that emphasis at least grudgingly substitutable.

That's not a formula that is going to beat secondary market or trash-tier construction among the really squeezed customers; and they aren't a huge seller to corporate/institutional types who can always go with service contracts roughly as long as their refresh cycles if they are worried about field repair.

I don't think that they've previously broken out their margins by configuration; but it's the same (comparatively expensive) chassis between the bottom of the barrel config and the top; so presumably there is either more margin in the more expensive motherboards.