It's been proven the that RF link latency is faster enough to justify the effort. Vp here is the issue, and fiber will never propagate as fast as free space radio.

You had it, it's all about the latency. The absolute bandwidth is not so important necessarily. The data bandwidth over a 25 MHz carrier isn't anything extraordinary compared to say ethernet, etc. But it's enough and it's the latency. Radio would be faster even than fiber optics even with minimal Network routing. But you can look it up. It's from 2023, and it was a big deal in the community back then. There's another messaging service that wants to run much higher up in UHF, and would it appear potentially to interfere with a variety of other services, including starlinks control Network.

There is currently no legal framework or justification for this. Any attempt by the markets themselves to do this would result in lawsuits and retreat.

While HFT is, to me, unethical, we're going to have to find an ethical means of reducing or eliminating it.

How about variable per transaction fees, starting at $.0001 per trade, then increasing with frequency of the trader's periodic transactions, so maybe at 10,000/hr the fee goes to $.001. At 1M/hr, $.01. After 10M/hr, $.1 per.

No doubt this is somehow unsustainable in the current regulatory framework. We'll have to see.

A further out there idea, eliminate direct data connections, put everyone through a gateway. Let them spend money bribing the gateway.

In 2023 there was a serious proposal put to the FCC to allocate some radio frequencies between 3 and 25MHz to permit financial data transmission. This was intended to serve the HFT business, and would provide an even faster and more reliable network for trade data. And it risked interfering with pre-existing amateur radio users. It has so far been rejected, though several license applications for broadcast stations in that spectrum included the intended uses of “broadcast ‘financial, economic news and data through distribution of programs generally prepared on the basis of requests by clients.’”. The FCC interpreted this as data transmission, and rejected those uses, as such data transmissions have other spectrum available, and such use would not be permitted under existing regulations for the spectrum requested. In other words, the HFT data merchants were told they cannot use these broadcast stations for that use.

The FCC doesn't care about the use of the data, or the data itself, only that it will likely interfere with other users (data transmissions tend to 'splatter' over frequencies outside those legally permitted, causing interference, and this has been a ploy to drive users out of their legally allocated bands, prompting demands that they take those over, having poisoned them, usually intentionally) and the FCC chooses to not approve such uses. And as in the parentheses, there is good reason based on past experience to believe such users would violate the terms of their licenses, causing significant harm to the other users .

There is real money involved. They will try other means also.

Did you report back and inform the LLM of the solution, so it could improve its answers?

Also, does /. permit LLMs to drag the /. swamp and scrape out these nuggets?

It's the opposite of a dummy load in electronics. Dummy loads are intended to safely dissipate power, while AI bots are intended to broadcast...

From Sec 230a:

(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

From the beginning:

- The Internet has developed and expanded sufficiently that it no longer needs the protection nor encouragement offered via this legislation.
- The development of the Internet has actually reduced and limited users' control over the information they have access to. That is censorship, for those of you in Rio Linda.
- The development of censorship, protected by Sec 230, has challenged the development of true diversity of political discourse, unless you're considering false information and misrepresentation to be diversity. And there is an argument for that.
- The Internet is suffering under implicit government regulation. Sec 230 here is somewhat defeating one of its own stated purposes.
- Americans, and indeed the world, are relying on the Internet so much more than they did prior to enactment of Sec 230. it is even more important now.

Sec 230 is used to permit Internet 'publishers' to escape responsibility for their censorship, promotion, and fabrications., Not that fabrication in the American press is anything new, and has never needed legislative protection before. But the Internet is the current means of yellow journalism, and as such needs nor should have protection beyond the First Amendment. Repeal it now.

The real surprise here is that the people who run WaPo think the AI-generated posts are different than their regular WaPo-generated posts...

Actually, they knew that all along. They just had to issue disclaimers to redirect the prols to the preexisting sources of misinformation. And to run interference, adding an apparent air of legitimacy to the human-generated content.

Piling on, Arizona Corporation Commission races are indeed contentious. They bring out activists that desperately want to turn Arizona into a California clone.

And I doubt the ACC will try to force this datacenter on Chandler. If you wonder how our Democrat Governor thinks of things, she is busy celebrating an "Ag-to-Urban” Groundwater Conservation Approval", just to ensure 825 new homes can be built in Buckeye, which were blocked because metro Phoenix does not have sufficient assurances of water supply for the next 100 years to permit further growth in that city.

It's darned hard to oppose development in Arizona. Too many stakeholders want to make their profits. Even Katie Hobbs will bow to them. Oh, wait, she bows to whoever greases the skids.

You had to go anonymous to post this? Pathetique...

Check the 3 year PMI at Trading Economics. Not obvious that manufacturing activity in the US has done anything but increase over the last 12+ months.

You have different statistics? Of course, we know what statistics are, don't we? Even that site has conflicting data, because there is no single measure that tells us much. Bitterness is not an acceptable economic policy.

That's so 80s. Browsers got a lot more functionality in the 90s. You were there, right?

The complaint is, at its right, AI replacing people. That's not a new fear. And I expect it to play out much like past technological changes. Not without pain. SMH not without advantages.

Here's the trick...

RISC-V is ostensibly an open source ISA. So as designers build new implementations, they may be advancing the capabilities of the ISA and contributing to the RISC-V universe.

But history teaches us that despise licensing and such, open source advances often get locked behind commercial license forks, and it is a fight to get these outfits to obey the true license. ARM suffered from this occasionally, but not like I expect RISC-V to. This chip ISA has the potential to upend the whole business.

Unless the big stuff gets locked away.

Combine Qualcomm's IP and expertise with the RISC-V platform, a nearly blank slate, and we could see cool stuff. Giving back to the RISC-V community? Not Qualcomm's strength from experience.

But RISC-V could win, if the innovators aren't locked out or patent-trolled into oblivion.

The one guy concept has been around for a while. Sometimes they use consultants, sometimes it's the gig economy that gets them work that can be done on demand. The AI is going to be another one of those tools. But you don't need two people to have a corporation. I think that describing AI as" replacing the corporation" is really just scare talk. The AI is going to replace jobs, it's also going to make new jobs possible or attractive. As with most all technology that we've seen over the past century, we can't predict all of the effects. I don't think it's the end of anything, though. Monolithic tools that operate in virtually every facet of life bring with them the risk of singular failures. That'll be interesting to watch

I think the promotion of a Lunar mission is more to give NASA some $ to spread around to their long term partners.

And the NASA-derived mission is just flailing in the dark, what a mess.