ysjet

ysjet , 15 days ago

Man, there is a LOT of people in this thread hoping to normalize this, or pretend it will happen anyway, or that it’s ‘not really a PR disaster’, or that people will ignore it, or-

Go make your money elsewhere, christ.

ysjet , 20 days ago

Carpenter bees aren’t a pest they’re a legitimate danger to life. Not directly like murder hornets are, but indirectly, because they destroy load bearing infrastructure.

ysjet , 22 days ago

That didn’t stop everyone from jumping on GPT, either.

ysjet , 1 month ago

He’s checking the bollard for scratches after a nazi drove a u-haul into it

ysjet , 1 month ago

Now it can make shit up and gaslight you with MULTIPLE senses!

ysjet , 1 month ago

You say that like a significant number of these Republican’s donors would not salivate over being able to fracture the US from world politics like that.

…Russia. I’m talking about Russia, if you’re unaware.

ysjet , 1 month ago

I’m not sure why you’re getting so aggressive over this, or so defensive about being told to separate your TV from your streaming tools so that if the streaming tools start to suck you can just replace a $20 stream stick instead of a several hundred to several thousand dollar TV you need to calm down and stop being a dick to people trying to politely help you and explain things to you.

ysjet , 1 month ago

You realize about 1/3 of all players physically cannot make a PSN account, right? This isn’t just ‘gamers having nothing better to do with their lives’, it’s an actual legal and economic issue.

ysjet , 1 month ago

This just in, corporate apologist media thinks Internet Archive should go away.

Why is this trash here?

ysjet , 1 month ago

That’s a really terrible misrepresentation of what happened.You should probably investigate this matter more. This article is supremely biased and basically outright wrong.

The quote you gave, for example, is an almost cartoonist level of distortion of the facts.

ysjet , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

In the case of Discourse, a hardware engineer is an embarrassment not deserving of a job if they can’t hit 90% of the performance of an all-time-great performance team but, as a software engineer, delivering 3% the performance of a non-highly-optimized application like MyBB is no problem. In Knuth’s case, hardware engineers gave programmers a 100x performance increase every decade for decades with little to no work on the part of programmers. The moment this slowed down and programmers had to adapt to take advantage of new hardware, hardware engineers were “all out of ideas”, but learning a few “new” (1970s and 1980s era) ideas to take advantage of current hardware would be a waste of time.

You can really tell this guy is some hardware design engineer at nvidia that has absolutely no fucking clue about how real-world user space programming works. Also I like how 74% slowly kept getting inflated until it became 90%.

Like, this dude is trying to claim that fucking Donald Knuth himfuckingself cannot figure out some new computer hardware.

Multiple processors working in concert is not, and never has been, a cure-all. It’s highly situational and generally not useful.

What’s dumb is that, as a Systems Design Engineer at NVIDIA, Dan Luu should know that. After all, how has SLI been doing recently?

That said, yes, of course, web dev bloat is absolutely out of control, and slow websites absolutely have nothing to do with hardware or network. That’s a culprit of bad frameworks, horrific amounts of ads/trackers/bullshit, and honestly just general lack of programming fundamentals in the web dev space. Might as well call them web technicians and really ruffle some feathers. :P

ysjet , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

He’s not theorizing, he’s summarizing decades of historians’ research. We know, for example, with the benefit of hindsight, that your idea would not have worked- it would have lead only to countless deaths via nuke, and then a long, slow slog through the meat grinder for troops and civilians.

How do we know this? Because we have Japanese communications from the time- and they basically sum up to something along the lines of “They don’t have the balls to use the bomb against people again.” with a side dash of “they don’t have more bombs to throw at people.”

Exploding the first one over water, the second one over a city on people, and then NOT dropping a third one because we didn’t have anymore would have proved them right, and lead to millions of dead Americans and Japanese. They made so many purple hearts preparing for that invasion in 1945 that we still haven’t gone through the backlog, 80 years later.

Now think about it without the benefit of hindsight. You know that culturally, they refuse to surrender. You know they see massive losses as completely acceptable, civilian, military, and suicide bombers. You know they want to try and grind the US down, make them give up because of the sheer number of troops dead. You know they’re trying desperately to negotiate a favorable surrender where they can save face, maintain their ‘experiments’, and maintain their military, which is exactly the sort of thing that lead to WW2 in the first place. Finally you know you only have two bombs. Use them wrong, and the deaths, crippling, and wounding of millions of your own country’s soldiers is directly on your head. Use them right, and you might get some surrenders.

Frankly speaking, dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost didn’t end the war. The second bomb was what finally changed the mind of the emperor, because he bought the bluff that if we had two we would throw at people, we had more. Even then, there was instantly a coup to try and halt the surrender process.

And finally, do keep in mind- every time the US bombed a Japanese city, they dropped leaflets warning the civilians to get out. By all accounts, they were actually highly effective.

To make it clear, dropping the bombs was a horrible thing. That it killed so many civilians who wouldn’t- or more likely couldn’t - get out in time, even if warned, is horrific. Leaflets are good and all, but that doesn’t meanyou have anywhere to go, or the infrastructure, and beyond that, the Emporer was executing anyone who tried to leave bombing areas. (Seriously, possession of a leaflet was grounds for immediate execution.) But the alternatives to dropping the bombs were judged, at the time, to be worse. And I believe that their decision to do so were understandable with the knowledge they had, the options they had, and the consequences to their own troops if they didn’t.

ysjet , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

You’re welcome for the details.

So I see ‘they were ready to surrender’ a lot in this thread, and while that’s not… false, it’s not exactly what it sounds like. They were ready to come to the table, yes, absolutely, but the problem was that they wanted to dictate their surrender - they wanted to keep their military, they wanted their industry rebuilt, they wanted the current government to stay in power- it was less of a surrender or more of a cessation of hostilities. Japan was ‘ready to surrender’ in much the same way Russia was ‘ready to come to the peace table’ about a year ago.

This was geopolitically not realistic, for a number of reasons- for one, allowing that kind of conditional surrender with Germany is directly what lead to WW2 in the first place, and nobody had any intentions of repeating that mistake. There was concern, given the view on surrendering, that it wouldn’t actually be peace, or a surrender, merely a delaying tactic to build up forces and entrench. For another, Russia was bearing down on Japan, and the Allies wanted to limit Russia’s geopolitical influence by preventing another East/West Germany. While the extra troops would have undoubtedly help save American lives, it would have ended in significant Russian and Japanese deaths, as well significant geopolitical issues long-term (East/West Germany worked so well, after all :P )

Long story short, the Allies absolutely wanted an unconditional surrender, exactly the kind of thing the Emperor and the military refused to contemplate, even after a single bomb was dropped. The military still refused to consider it even after the second, so seeing the a-bomb in action once would likely, I feel, not have done much.

RE: hitting civilians in large numbers, my understanding is less that they were deliberately targeting civilians, and more that they were looking for military targets that were geographically located in a position that would enhance the bomb’s effects without considering civilians too much. You could argue in a very real way that they were deployed as terror weapons, or perhaps ‘shock and awe’ weapons if you want to be slightly less confrontational. Civilian casualties were, much like the entire rest of WW2, not much of a consideration- WW2 was considered a total war, and the Geneva Convention would not be signed for another 4 years, directly as a result of the atrocities of WW2. At the time, civilians were not considered something to inherently avoid unless you had some sort of political reason to do so (hence the leaflets). The most obvious example of this is the firebombings of Tokyo, which killed far, far more civilians in arguably far more painful ways, but there’s plenty of example in the European front from all sides as well. Again, they were making decisions with the knowledge and viewpoints of the time. Doesn’t excuse it, but trying to moralize decisions made in the past with current morals is always kind of a waste of time, in my opinion.

Regarding the third shot, there was, at the time, no bombs available when the uranium Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima was dropped, but they had prepped for another. They immediately turned towards trying to prepare another (Nagasaki’s plutonium-based Fat Man), and managed to rush it to completion in just a week, but keep in mind that these were highly dangerous, experimental one-off prototypes being produced- it’s why all of the planned subsequent bombs were of the fat man design, which was significantly safer, and America was completely out of uranium at that. It was only able to be rushed to completion so much because General Groves always planned to use two, and a lot of the logistics were already worked out and prepped beforehand. Before more plutonium bombs could be made, Woodrow Wilson called off the production. So yes, America was technically out of bombs, and completely out of uranium.

Arguably, America could have created more plutonium bombs, but was limited by the availability of plutonium (which is lengthy to turn into weapons grade), the speed at which they could be safely produced (and Fat Man was, frankly, very unsafely produced, it should have taken nearly 3 weeks to create), and America only had a small amount of weapons-grade plutonium stockpiled. So technically, both positions are correct- America only had two bombs, and they certainly could have made more, but they were limited by time and materials, and lack of willingness. They had, perhaps, one or two more fat mans they would be able to drop, with perhaps 3+ week production times for each (because no logistics were prepared for it), before it would have dropped to something like iirc 6 months per bomb due to lack of plutonium.

So yes, one could argue there could have been more bombs after the first two, but it was generally considered by the American military and also the President that two was the ‘magic number,’ so there wasn’t any setup for them, so they would not have been cranked out anywhere near as fast. Nobody believed that one bomb would trigger a surrender (because of, again, the cultural viewpoints on surrendering) as well the implicit belief that it would be a one-off prototype that could not be repeated.

If two did not, and it was widely considered it would, nobody believed 3 would be any more likely to trigger a surrender than two did, and might even convince them to fight harder. In addition, due to the effects of radiation, America would have limited to how they could use the bombs one the land invasion started- with Russia from the north, America from the south-east, and most of central Japan firebombed, there’s not a lot of good targets without hitting allies.

ysjet , 2 months ago

Yeah, this is just straight up a scam, she has no obligation to buy their fucking illegal scam house. House belongs to her, in my opinion, if she wants it, and if she doesn’t, it’s on company dime to bulldoze the entire thing, clean the lot, reseed it, and pay back the tax burden they forced.

ysjet , 2 months ago

I can assure you, the multi-million dollar organization does not need your defense of them.

ysjet , 2 months ago

It’s not an ‘if’, it’s an absolute guarentee. This isn’t a new play, this has been their gameplan every single time they do these sort of things.

ysjet , 2 months ago

yes, it’s a known problem that one party has managed to ‘stack’ the entire judicial system with their judges.

ysjet , 2 months ago

I think the key here is of they were truly a demo username/password. If they were, there’s an expectation of use there.

ysjet , 2 months ago

You misunderstand- om saying that depending on what kind of demo account is it, he might have been authorized to view the demo.

It depends on who the demo was intended for.

ysjet , 3 months ago

The problem here is “reasonable court.” One party in the US has spent decades stacking the courts with unreasonable judges who will agree to anything a corporation hands them.

ysjet , 3 months ago

Possibly, but I’ll just transcribe it here for screenreaders and people who can’t see through the pixelation:

Linux Error Messages That Go Hard Starter Pack

<span style="color:#323232;">ERROR: Failed to mount the real root device.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Bailing out, you are on your own. Good luck.
</span>

<span style="color:#323232;">WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
</span><span style="color:#323232;">   sysvinit initscripts (due to sysvinit) sysv-rc (due to sysvinit) util-linux
</span><span style="color:#323232;">0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 198 to remove and 3 not upgraded
</span><span style="color:#323232;">You are about to do something potentially harmful.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> ?] 
</span>

<span style="color:#323232;">(12/19) upgrading linux-raspberrypi
</span><span style="color:#323232;">WARNING: /boot appears to be a seperate partition but is not mounted.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">         You probably just broke your system. Congratulations.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">>>> Updating module dependencies. Please wait...
</span>

<span style="color:#323232;">[   0.895799] ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">on unknown block(0,0)
</span>

<span style="color:#323232;">  _______________________________
</span><span style="color:#323232;">< Your System ate a SPARC! Gah! >
</span><span style="color:#323232;">  ------------------------------
</span><span style="color:#323232;">                ^__^
</span><span style="color:#323232;">                (xx)_________
</span><span style="color:#323232;">                 (__)         )/
</span><span style="color:#323232;">                  U   ||-----w |
</span><span style="color:#323232;">                      ||      ||
</span>

<span style="color:#323232;">Out of memory: Kill process 15745 (postgres) score 10 or sacrifice child
</span>

ysjet , 3 months ago

Regardless of if they actually hired a hitman, it’s very clear that Boeing harassed and psychologically attacked this man to the point of him ending up dead.

Whether they actually hired a man to pull that trigger or convinced him to pull it himself, legally his murder would be on their hands and they damn well need charged for it.

ysjet , 3 months ago

Frankly speaking, whether or not a hitman was hired, Boeing is culpable.

Organizing a concerted effort to drive someone to suicide is just as illegal as murdering them. End of story.

ysjet , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

It’s actually not the standard, the standard was iirc 70% for in-store at the time. These days I think it’s closer to 50%, assuming no 3rd party losses/licensing.

Nintendo/Sony/Apple/etc are all 30% too, by the way.

ysjet , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

Man, Epic must be patting themselves on the back for all the money they paid getting people to believe 30% was outrageous, because it’s paying massive dividends.

It may shock you to know that before Steam, your options were to fuck off or offer your product in a store where you would only get 30% of the profit, with the rest going to the publisher, the retailer, licensing, etc. These days it’s closer to 50% for physical copies, and Apple/Nintendo/Sony/etc all standardized with Steam on you getting 70% for digital.

Don’t like it? Pull a Valve and make your own alternative that’s better. If you build it, they will come… which is why nobody uses EGS.

ysjet , 3 months ago

Not to mention Valve has a history of offering interest-free loans to developers to help them get their games out- and there’s not even a requirement that you have the game on steam after.

Not to mention you can generate steam keys to sell on other game stores, in which case steam gives themselves a 0% cut, despite you still using and benefiting from all their services.

ysjet , 3 months ago

Because every other dev here is saying that on-premise work isn’t actually needed for for devkits, and this guy has a definite vibe of “man, if I don’t defend the multi-million dollar game corporations, no one else will!”

ysjet , 3 months ago

Imagine if you knew the most basic foundational features of the language you were using.

Next we’ll teach you about this neat thing called the compiler.

ysjet , 3 months ago

wiki.ubuntu.com/Apport

It intentionally acts as an intercept for such things, so that core dumps can be nicely packaged up and sent to maintainers in a GUI-friendly way so maintainers can get valuable debugging information even from non-tech-savvy users. If you’re running something on the terminal, it won’t be intercepted and the core dump will be put in the working directory of the binary, but if you executed it through the GUI it will.

Assuming, of course, you turn crash interception on- it’s off by default since it might contain sensitive info. Apport itself is always on and running to handle Ubuntu errors, but the crash interception needs enabled.

ysjet , 3 months ago

gdb gives you waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than a stack trace.

ysjet , 3 months ago

np

ysjet , 4 months ago

Because the entire design of it is to mathematically prevent you from having the option to hack or block the ads. THe way to get around it is to… not use chrome.

ysjet , 4 months ago

looks like a cherry starburst to me, which are pretty common to have the wrapper stick to them.

ysjet , 4 months ago

To be entirely fair, what civil discourse can you have around “We want to make bloodsport of murdering these people.” vs “Maybe just let people have basic rights.”

ysjet , 4 months ago

Wow, it’s almost like that’s why they said you didn’t need a graphics card, instead of saying you didn’t need a GPU!

ysjet , 4 months ago

Yes, and it’s you. Fuck off and go away.

ysjet , 4 months ago

As a network engineer, so many of the arguments for why tiktok is terrible are dismissed because of xenophobia. It’s unreal, because it is blatantly obvious that it is just absolutely rummaging through your phone for every last bit of information it can steal about you.

I don’t care what nationality the people are that are receiving it, there is no excuse for that shit and you need to get off tiktok.

ysjet , 4 months ago

Or instead of increased spying and mass surveillance, they could actually enforce the laws we have now instead of admitting they fucked up and haven’t even tried out the current setup.

Complaining that the current laws dont work and need to be replaced with authoritarian mass surveillance when they haven’t even TRIED to actually enforce the current laws is a bad look.

ysjet , 4 months ago

From a network engineer perspective, facebook is probably more effective at stealing data, but steals ‘less’ (still a crapload) data than tiktok (seriously, you would not fucking BELIEVE how much data tiktok constantly sends to the servers). Plus, of course, all the data you give facebook, facebook gets. That said, it’s sort of 6 of one, half dozen of another- just because tiktok can’t find an actual use for some of the data it’s got, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t later.

Twitter’s app doesn’t actually steal/exfiltrate all that much data, believe it or not. Most of their trackers and analytics are focused on your use of twitter itself. It’s still ran by a psychopathic manchild, however, and they are still, in my opinion, stealing data from you.

Personally, my home wifi has all three blocked via DNS. None of them get my data.

ysjet , 4 months ago

We don’t need ‘slightly more’ or ‘the same amount’ of mass surveillance, we need drastically less.

More to the point, there’s no actual guarantee that repealing section 230 will have it actually be replaced by anything, which would effectively kill free speech on the internet, if not actually kill the internet itself.

ysjet , 4 months ago

… You’re literally on lemmy right now. That’s as anti-walled garden fiefdom as you can get.

ysjet , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Hate to break up the bandwagon, but the modder didn’t say he faked anything at all. He tweeted that while he originally said that the models were “exactly” the same, he clarified that while they were not precisely 1:1 without any modifications at all, they were still the same model with minor adjustments.

Some other dude then jumped on the tweet and made up a narrative that the modder had faked everything. Then this “journalist” decided to make an entire article about a tweet from some random dude putting words in the modders mouth.

Given the rest of the editorializing in the article, I think we can pretty safely say this dude is coping hard.

ysjet , 4 months ago

Ehhhh. These are the experts in the field. If they’re chiming in with “Yo this looks sketchy as fuck,” you should consider that, instead of bandwagoning, they’re speaking in their capacity as video game artists with experience and training in the matter.

ysjet , 4 months ago

Actually, you’re misunderstanding why the Appeal to Authority is a fallacy- Appeal to Authority is one of the few fallacies that has both fallacious and non-fallacious uses. You shouldn’t take AtA being known as a fallacy as a reason to distrust authorities, or do some kind of ‘well I have to do my own, uneducated research on this subject.’ You shouldn’t take it as an automatic fallacy simply because the authority might have biases either. AtA is not an argument for anti-authoritarianism or anti-education.

The key here is that an appeal to authority is fallacious when it’s stated to support a position that is not related, or the authority is not an authority in the subject.

For example, if someone said “I’m a game developer, and I think this was stolen,” that could be a fallacious appeal to authority- they might work on sound engines! However, if someone says they’re an 3d modeler/animator and they think the mesh looks stolen because the edgelines for the tris map the same ways within the quads, which is unlikely to happen by accident, that’s a legitimate appeal to authority that is not fallacious. If someone says they’re a lawyer and think it’s stolen, this could be a fallacious appeal to authority- they might not be an IP lawyer.

They key is ensuring that the appeal to authority is relevant and is not predicated on the idea of being true simply because of who they are.

And no, ‘There is a theoretical possibility the authority could have had a bias’ is not an acceptable reason to dismiss an expert opinion as a fallacy.

ysjet , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

I find it rather hilarious that you’re trying to warn me against discourse in the vein of "I assume you’re ignorant, so let me enlighten you’ while literally doing it yourself. You can try to pretend you’re not in #3, but you literally just spent like 8 paragraphs trying to do so. Incorrectly, at that, but since you clearly think you’re so much smarter than all the ignorant “muppets” (as you put it) out there who you’re dismissing as band-wagoners without doing any of your beloved deductive reasoning on the proof they’ve been providing I doubt you’ll actually consider it for a moment.

Even funnier is the fact that you’re trying to drag out all these debates about the exact definitions and semantics when in the end this only came up because of your own strawman in the first place- that being your own assumption that an appeal to authority was even happening in the first place, when I specifically noted that one should examine what the experts are saying instead of just dismissing them as band-wagoners.

ysjet , 5 months ago

Samir Dinesh, you’re breaking the car!

ysjet , 5 months ago

Whoever made this comic has never actually seen millennials and zoomers interact. We all cool.

ysjet , 5 months ago

No? That’s literally how banks work. You store your money there, and they protect it, manage it, etc. But this isn’t harry potter, there isn’t some underground vault with your name on it, they just take all your money and stick it in a giant pool they use to invest and make themselves money.

‘Your’ money is actually just them tracking what you actually have, and if you ask for some of it, they have the equivalent of petty cash they pay it out with. You cannot pull out massive amounts of your own money all at once without warning on the spot, because they simply will not have it available.

It’s why depressions and ‘bank runs’ are a thing- the actual amount of cash a bank has on available is ALWAYS lower than the total number of assets they have earmarked from people, because it’s all tied up in investments. If those investments go belly up, or everyone all tries to pull money out at the same, the bank has a major problem.

“Freezing” someone’s assets just means that the bank isn’t allowed to let someone pull money out, or transfer that money, not that the cash/investments/etc are pulled back and stuck in a vault somewhere- the BANK still has that money it’s larger money pool, because it was always there from the first moment they got it.