tekato @ tekato @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

216

Joined

10 mo. ago

And in terms of cashflow, they depend on that google money. They're in trouble without it

That’s irrelevant. The only thing important is what they have to do for that money, which is setting Google as the default search engine. This only “hurts” you if you don’t take 15 seconds to change the default.

How are they doing that? They’re simply making money by putting Google search as the default. Changing it literally takes a few seconds.

There is more than just the kernel

This is a developer desktop. Its purpose is to develop software for the ARM architecture, therefore all you need for this machine is kernel support and development tools, all of which support ARM.

I don't see the competitive advantage

What about being able to compile and test for the targeted architecture? For example, Ampere-based servers are increasingly being deployed, I don’t think there’s a car out there running x86, and Apple started a trend of ARM based laptops. There’s a new architecture in mainstream computing and those who have native ARM machines to test their products on have an advantage over those who don’t.

Yes. The Google-funded Firefox that won’t take away your ability to block ads. Any other questions?

What do you mean by standards?

arm64 is very well supported by the Linux kernel. What makes you say it’s not?

ISPs have nothing to do with what the article talks about, this is about logical gates. Anyways, this tech sounds like a research toy to secure some grants for the laboratory.

Government comprises many departments and organizations, which do many things. It's not a single blob of all good or all bad.

I don’t remember saying the contrary. When one part of the government does something, it was still the government.

not all back doors and CPU bugs are government-imposed

Don’t remember saying every single backdoor is government-imposed. Fact is there’s at least one backdoor that is for the government, whether there’s 1 or 5 doesn’t really matter.

you don't know his actual usage

Why would I need to know his usage? Whatever it might be, a newer CPU can do the same amount of work as an old CPU for a fraction of the energy.

meaningless anyway unless you subtract from it the energy use from manufacturing and distributing a new system, as well as that from disposing of the old one.

You mean the CPU that was already manufactured years ago and won’t magically disappear due to you refusing to upgrade to it? Whether you use it or not the energy to create it was already spent.

you haven't addressed the other problems mentioned at all

And I didn’t mean to. I simply corrected you when you congratulated him for using less energy, which is not true.

They don’t allow 3rd party clients, as per their ToS:

You must not (or assist others to) access, use, modify, distribute, transfer, or exploit our Services in unauthorized manners, or in ways that harm Signal, our Services, or systems. For example you must not (a) gain or try to gain unauthorized access to our Services or systems; (b) disrupt the integrity or performance of our Services; (c) create accounts for our Services through unauthorized or automated means; (d) collect information about our users in any unauthorized manner; or (e) sell, rent, or charge for our Services.

You need authorization to access Signal servers, which they don’t give:

we really don't want forked versions of the app maintained by other parties connecting to our servers. Not only could the users using the forked version have a subpar experience, but the people they're talking to (using official clients) could also have a subpar experience (for example, an official client could try to send a new kind of message that the fork, having fallen out of date, doesn't support). I know you say you'd advocate for a build expiry, but you know how things go. Of course you have our full support if you'd like to fork Signal, name it something else, and use your own servers.

In my opinion, this is a horrible decision from Signal.

it may take legislation to give us back control of the computers we supposedly own

The government is the reason why you have backdoors built into your computers and routers.

He is adding to the world’s energy given that an FX 8350 is slower than something like a Ryzen 5600 at twice the TDP.

I guess you know more about hardware nomenclature Linux kernel developers, because they call modern Intel/AMD and ARM CPUs amd64 and aarch64, respectively.

https://wiki.hyprland.org/Configuring/Binds/#global-keybinds

Yes, but confidence values are not magic. These values are calculated based on how familiar the current input is to a previous observed input. If the type of input is unfamiliar to the model, what do you think happens? Usually, there will be a category with a high enough confidence score so that it will be chosen as the correct one, while being wrong. Now, assuming you somehow manage to not get a favorable confidence score for any decision. What do you think happens in that case? I never encountered this, but there can only be 3 possible paths: 1) Choose a random value. Not good. 2) Do nothing. Not good. 3) Rerun the model with slightly newer data? Maybe helps, but in the case of driving a car, slightly newer data might be too late.

I love how you quoted all the parts expect the one that mentions where for this to even apply the person have to misuse corporate assets in the first place.

Didn’t bother responding to it because it’s irrelevant. Elon Musk is not being accused of misusing corporate assets, he is being accused of not complying with the DSA.

there is extensive legal precedent in the EU that covers this

Of course, extensive means many. Point to at least 2 cases in which other assets of a company’s owner were threatened by the EU government due to DSA violations. I know there are none, so I’ll make it easier. Name 2 cases for which the EU went after the owner’s other assets because the fine to the company wasn’t enough, whatever the fine might originate from.

So a company provides infinite protection?

No. Never even suggested that.

"I didn't murder that man, the company did."

"The company paid individual X to murder them, not me."

Ridiculous stretch. I have stated multiple times, as has the law, the company provides financial protections, did I ever say anything else? Of course if you are involved in the murder of somebody you should be prosecuted. If you can’t argue in good faith don’t bother responding.

if your name is Elon Musk and you own companies X, Y, & Z, and you perform actions A, B, C, you I'll be fined in this exact way?

No. You can clearly state in the law that “if your company is found to violate a consumer protection law, your other assets will be in jeopardy if we can’t figure out a way to fine your company”. I wonder what would be the consequences of explicitly informing companies of the consequences of their actions.

And do you know who agreed to these rules? Elon Musk. He chose to do business in the EU. He agreed to their rules.

Yes he did. He agreed to the rule that states the company will be fined up to 6% of the yearly income, not whatever this is.

It can't be irrelevant as it's the primary factor in deciding if the fine will even be brought.

Is DSA the only way for your company to get fined? If the answer is no, then yes, it’s irrelevant. Because while your company may not be eligible for a DSA fine, there are countless different situations which could leave you in the same spot.

Personal liability applies to many actions under the law

Yes, but none of those actions involve what is happening here. The DSA clearly states that the company may be fined up to 6% of its yearly revenue.

your scaremongering of small family business becoming some governments targets are unfounded.

What scaremongering? This is a valid concern. If Elon Musk’s rights as a company owner can be violated, who says yours can’t?

Actions you don’t like aren’t corrupt. Actions Elon doesn’t like aren’t corrupt.

Can you point to where I said or implied the opposite?

In fact arguably Elon is the corrupt individual in this case

I never said Elon was in the right. I have stated that his company must be punished for the decisions it made, not the owner as per the protections guaranteed by the law to company owners.

the EU is simply applying the law to the corrupt individual.

You mean the law that violates your rights as the head of a corporation, which is supposed to protect your assets from those of the company? Cool.

Right, which is why that marvelous confidence value got somebody ran over.