Just because something is common and widespread doesn't mean it should continue to be common and widespread, though it will continue to happen due to human nature. And yet, people striving to be constructive and positive won't celebrate the death of a stranger. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a cultural lodestar found globally for a very good reason: cheering the death of others may lead to others hoping to cheer your death, and that potential is enough to significantly curtail offers of constructive and positive assistance from the victims to the perpetrators, leading to a gradual social degradation within the perpetrators. Certainly remember and even memorialize a person's death, but the exaltation of a person's death is a sure path to cultural collapse.
Now, that's assuming people are one unified group. In reality, most people are forced into an "in" group or an "out" group. The "in" group exalts the death of the "out" group member, so the "out" group members must respond in kind. That eventually leads to the degradation of both groups, leaving the "above" and "beyond" groups with the remnants. In turn, the destructive and negative conflict continues.
Microsoft has many intelligent people who work there and certainly do many risk vs. reward calculations for each modification to Windows. From Microsoft's perspective, they have much more control over the OS when everyone's linked to a cloud account. I morally disagree with that approach, but the security issues with Windows come from unpatched systems. They tried to win over software developers by creating WSL, but the privacy- and security-minded software developers never really bit.
Also, consider that Microsoft's future is obviously pivoted toward cloud infrastructure. Yes, they smartly have other ventures, but all those ventures will rely on Microsoft cloud infrastructure in some way. Server farms are a much better business model, from Microsoft's perpective, especially because it pulls Microsoft into the domains of true wealth: land acquisition, energy production, and data mining.
Some years ago, I snagged a great deal on some Sennheiser HD600s. After also acquiring a Schiit stack (Magni + Modi) and finding high-quality audio sources, I would close my eyes, lay down on the couch, and just listen...actually, I'll call it perceive the music. No other audio experience compares, just like a huge screen which fills your vision is truly the best way to experience a movie.
Virtually all people on the planet perceive the world with their eyes but push the other four physical senses into the background. There's good reason for this reality, of course: of our five physical senses, the eyes are capable of providing the richest information. And yet, most discussion around increasing perceptual abilities are vision-centric. Learning to perceive with your ears, smell, touch, and taste in addition to eyes should also be learned.
I’ve been producing music as a side interest for a long time, and I learned early on that to really hear what’s going on during a mix I have to close my eyes and wait about 30 seconds for my ears to “open up”. My visual sense overrides the soundstage — I can make some technical choices about frequency masking and so forth, but I can’t fully hear with eyes open.
Tokamaks are conceptually elegant but contain significant inefficiencies which negatively impact potential net power output. Both tokamaks and optimized stellarators have magnetic fields possessing omnigeneity [1], but tokamaks require two magnetic fields (poloidal and toroidal) whereas stellarators employ one.
The bigger question is if magnetic confinement fusion will lead to the best energy producing devices. Competitors include inertial confinement, pinches, or some other exotic method. If a magnetic confinement fusion device produces net power, it's going to be a stellarator.
>serial interfaces dominating over the parallel ones
Semi-accurate. For example, PCIe remains dominant in computing. PCIe is technically a serial protocol, as new versions of PCIe (7.0 is releasing soon) increase the serial transmission rate. However, PCIe is also parallel-wise scalable based on performance needs through "lanes", where one lane is a total of four wires, arranged as two differential pairs, with one pair for receiving (RX) and one for transmitting (TX).
PCIe scales up to 16 lanes, so a PCIe x16 interface will have 64 wires forming 32 differential pairs. When routing PCIe traces, the length of all differential pairs must be within <100 mils of each other (I believe; it's been about 10 years since I last read the spec). That's to address the "timing skew between lanes" you mention, and DRCs in the PCB design software will ensure the trace length skew requirement is respected.
>how can this be addressed in this massive parallel optical parallel interface?
From a hardware perspective, reserve a few "pixels" of the story's MicroLED transmitter array for link control, not for data transfer. Examples might be a clock or a data frame synchronization signal. From the software side, design a communication protocol which negotiates a stable connection between the endpoints and incorporates checksums.
Abstractly, the serial vs. parallel dynamic shifts as technology advances. Raising clock rates to shove more data down the line faster (serial improvement) works to a point, but you'll eventually hit the limits of your current technology. Still need more bandwidth? Just add more lines to meet your needs (parallel improvement). Eventually the technology improves, and the dynamic continues. A perfect example of that is PCIe.
Great argument overall. What strikes me is that I have also thought long and hard about fundamental natural rights, and my proposition is that Free Will is paramount and Privacy is the close second.
I believe such a claim can be robustly supported, and it is my hope to one day do so, ideally supported with a degree of philosophy. Your perspective is, in some ways, quite similar to my own, though it also has notable differences. I do believe it can be rigorously argued, for example, that Life is an outcome of Free Will, not the other way around. I believe it can also be shown that Privacy (not the cybernetic privacy, or cyberprivacy, articulated with privacy policies, GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA) is (a) distinct from Free Will, (b) uniquely allows for the expression and development of Free Will, and (c) that maximal expression of Free Will is the global optimum for Life.
Thanks for the reply and for giving me further food for thought. I'll have to think more about it but I can see how Privacy fits this framework. My first inclination is to see Privacy as a consequence of Freedom, meaning you are free not to disclose something if you choose so. I'm still seeing Life as the foremost right because without it, you can't exercise any other rights, and because one's right to be free cannot infringe another one's right to live, generally speaking. But regardless, you've given me lots of great food for thought, so thank you again for that reply and I look forward to seeing your paper posted here one day
True. You should look into Project Xanadu, which was created with seventeen original rules, one of which is the following:
>Every document can contain a royalty mechanism at any desired degree of granularity to ensure payment on any portion accessed, including virtual copies ("transclusions") of all or part of the document.
Historically, people trusted something reported as fact and were naturally skeptical of opinion. It seems that many people are realigning to an environment where the "facts" were presented to create a limited, specific perspective of the world (which is closer to opinion) and the majority of "opinion" producers were challenged to be, and in some cases became, more evidence-based (which is closer to fact). In effect, the system is self-correcting to reflect the natural state of the world: truth exists, and the task is on you to discover it.
The obvious solution is to actually have librarians correctly classify the videos. DDS focuses on the nature of the work itself, not on the keywords or spam in the content. Librarians understand how to class all kinds of works, and it should be relatively simple to build a DDS/MDS index (Melville Decimal System since it's open, see https://librarything.com/mds) for YouTube videos. Just like with books, disagreement on classification is inevitable and perfectly natural; there's no perfect classification scheme, though DDS/MDS does a generally good job.
There is already auto captioning done by YouTube. It would be trivial to plug an ai that generates tags and classify each videos based on the whole content.
I am sure they already do that.
No, ephemeral usernames are not differential privacy. Differential privacy is repeatedly sampling a database through a differentially-private interface which returns data samples which are either real or fake. The mean and variance of the sampled data match the true mean and variance of the dataset according to a system-defined epsilon value. The end user isn't able to know if any given piece of data is real or fake.
Now, that's assuming people are one unified group. In reality, most people are forced into an "in" group or an "out" group. The "in" group exalts the death of the "out" group member, so the "out" group members must respond in kind. That eventually leads to the degradation of both groups, leaving the "above" and "beyond" groups with the remnants. In turn, the destructive and negative conflict continues.