If you go old enough, you have to take into account that memory bandwidth was terrible.

On a Pentium 1, I believe RAM can do somewhere around 100MB/s. And sure, it gets better later, but still. If you consider that a serious RAID-5 for instance, you're reading at a minimum 3 drives, and computing parity, then yes, you can easily take most of your memory's bandwidth just on that. It makes a lot of sense then to offload stuff to a RAID card.

These days hard disks are laughably slow compared to the rest of the computer, but it didn't use to be quite like that. A high end SCSI drive of the era might do maybe 20 MB/s, which is a good fraction of the system RAM's capability. Put just 3 there and it's starting to get tricky.

Also, we have the benefit that some slowness stopped to matter. If you're RAID5-ing 3 x 8GB/s NVMes and not getting the ideal performance out of it there's lots of cases where that doesn't matter because you don't have a workload capable of doing anything with what even a single drive is capable of providing anyway.

They don't need to be.

The thousand-men armies scanning books get the books by buying them by the pallet load. It's stuff that nobody really wants, like old technical books that are out of date, self-published books, etc.

If the book was actually valuable you wouldn't expect the seller to sell it for dirt cheap.

To me the hoops that smoothbrains will jump through to avoid IPv6 and stay on legacy IPv4, especially when hosting, is pathetic. NAT, port forwarding, tunnels, blah blah blah blah.

I have something like ~1.2 trillion times the number of routable addresses that the entire IPv4 space has. Not all are reachable, of course, just the services that need incoming access and they're each on their own isolated DMZ.

Forgot to add: if you enable IPv6, be sure to use the browser extension IPvFoo. It shows a small 4 or 6 in your URI bar to let you know what protocol you're connecting to. Once enabled, you'll see just how much stuff out there actually is IPv6.

Started the move about 18 months ago when I decided to get off my lazy ass. My ISP gives out a /56 prefix, so that lets me run 256 /64 subnets/VLANs in the house, currently there are ~10 in use. Everything get a GUA through SLAAC and I use RAs (Router Advertisements) to give ULAs to everything. Any external facing services get their own VLAN and /64 for the system(s) as needed. Firewall blocks all incoming as they usually do by default and I punch a hole for the external-facing systems. They can't reach back into the network, they only answer the phone. All the systems update DNS dynamically if the prefix or full address ever change.

I have an SSH bastion set up. In all this time there has not been a single SSH attempt from the internet. On IPv4 it was constant background noice.
For those legacy IPv4-only systems on the internet, I set up NAT64. I have an IoT VLAN and IoT 2.4 GHz wireless network that are only IPv4 because a lot of IoT network stacks are junk.

I'm still farting around with it, but man oh man, there's no way I'd go back to IPv4. It was one of the best moves I've done in ages.

More like the total opposite, I'd say.

I can't imagine what's the business value of having ChatGPT doing a BloodNinja impression. It's not good for PR, it'd risk exclusion in serious environments, school and the like, it'd risk legal trouble, the list goes on. The potential for trouble far outweighs any possibly benefit, which is what? There's only downsides because it'd go wrong in some way sooner rather than later.

No, doubling down on serious, well paying uses and removing controversial ideas of little worth is exactly what looks like a clear, decent strategy here.

I'm not seeing a paywall on the site. uBlock Origin must be doing something.

The UHF app on our Apple TVs & iOS devices and the UHF Server in Docker to act as a PVR gives us everything for a few $ a month paid in crypto.
We haven't had cable since ~1999-2000. Downloading and the *arrs have kept us happy, but the better half wanted to check out some live sports. So IPTV it was.

One of our guys said something to the effect of "Copilot is Corporate Chat. It knows all the useless filler of management-speak, but lacks the competence of the people in the trenches.

Ouch.

I've used Claude at home for ages. Work was wanting to get some AI stuff for us and the only 'blessed' one is CoPilot. Everything else it blocked. All senior management seems to know about AI is "Hurrr... Copilot and ChatGPT."

Out team of ~8 (pentestesting & VA) were unanimous about Copilot being crap and Claude being the top dog. So some higher ups OK'd a Claude Teams package for work. To bypass the CorpSec tards, we use it from our lab environment that has its own unmonitored link and IP range.

Anthropic/Claude is just so far ahead of OpenAI/ChatGPT and MS/Copilot it's not funny.

TIOBE's methodology is to plug "$LANG programming" into a bunch of search engines (including oddly enough Amazon and ebay), apparently take the "1.2 million results" stats in the corner at face value, apply some magical fudge factors and call that good.

I'm constantly mystified why this nonsense gets this amount of prominence when there's better data sources. Look at employment offers, Github or something at least.

It's opposite, more like it.

The purpose of a screensaver was avoiding burn-in on screens prone to it, like CRTs and plasma displays.

LCDs and power saving modes mostly killed them off.

They were talking about text, I don't believe there's watermarking for that. There's just statistical guesses, and I don't think most LLMs are likely to be any good at it.

Then this is all a distraction. Maybe he filtered the text through/images a LLM to make it less recognizable, maybe it's just coincidence. It doesn't matter. The only important matter is whether it's actually true or not.

Also, the Verge are morons.

The Verge put the original 586-word Reddit post through several free online AI detectors, in addition to Gemini, ChatGPT, and Claude. The results were mixed: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Pangram, Gemini, and Claude all pegged it as likely AI-generated, but ZeroGPT and QuillBot both reported it as human-written.

You can't ask ChatGPT "is this AI generated"! LLMs don't have permanent memory. ChatGPT can't confirm "I wrote this for another user", it can't know. Besides that it's unlikely to be a good detector. It will answer, but it's not qualified to answer, it's a very general system not aimed at anything particular, and detectors are unreliable even when made for it.

Anyway, not saying it's not fake, just that the methodology presented here is complete bullshit.