And also it's using machines to catch up to living creation and evolution, badly.

A but similar to how Soviet system was trying to catch up to in no way virtuous, but living and vibrant Western societies.

That's expensive, and that's bad, and that's inefficient. The only subjective advantage is that power is all it requires.

In any case this (the pic) is the dumb ape "A is bad, so I replace it with something by B, B is my friend, B won't poison it" thought. For whatever reason stupid people always think it's better to look at social context of something and not the actual thing.

That's the reason a lot of dumb bastards use Telegram for things that would have already gotten them in jail if law enforcement in their countries cared enough. They "trust" Telegram because of different roots than American\European corporate. By the way, due to these different roots probably some of more high-ranking dumb bastards who've been using Telegram are under control of some intelligence services via blackmail, or whatever.

There are layers of defense and sane expectations of anything's security. If you are afraid of US corporations and state, then using any downstream of a big FOSS project is not normal unless it's done by some Chinese project with a lot of very qualified hands. Scratch anything based on Chromium and Firefox.

If someone still remembers Cryptonomicon the book, and the rest of smart things Neal Stephenson wrote, people in these never trust tech they use. Neither do people doing secure things in real life. In the beginning of Cryptonomicon they are trying to create some electronic currency mapped to a real-life currency backed by a lot of gold yet to be found, in the end they blow up that gold with no conclusion, which may or may not symbolize exactly what I'm saying.

That's because it's nonsense, someone else made magic paper to protect your letters and you just trust it? It's really sad Rowling didn't develop the idea enough in HP, not with Riddle's diary, but with Snape's spells (or any spells). I mean, she did in the fifth book, but that was a special connection, should have been something like recipes.

By the way, it's strange people rarely bring up HP as a book about computers. It really is. That's the reason electronics don't work in Hogwarts, world-building wise. There's the usual outrage about terfs, bad emotional patterns, relationship between fate and logic, negative stereotypes of minorities manifested in characters, - but that's not all those books are.

And LOTR is usually brought up by wrong people, so is The Napoleon of Notting Hill (I often call my dad a stupid man, but without him I would never have read it), while they are relevant for any new mechanism, and when new tools arise, people sometimes make new mechanisms where they could do with old ones, for the lack of understanding of applying the old mechanisms with the new tools.

That was a rant.

“No real human would go four links deep into a maze of AI-generated nonsense,”

Looking for porn me with red eyes swearing at the screen.

There are solutions. I've just read (diagonally) a paper on attacks on Kademlia. The solutions would be similar to what's recommended there. The problems are in appearances different, but stem from no admission control for the network.

All this tomfoolery about "oh horror, how do we solve this" is because bot farms and recommendation systems and ad networks have proven very convenient and profitable, nobody wants to scratch that ecosystem in favor of f2f services. So they want to remove one side of the coin, but leave the other.

Same, except they don't just disagree, they are extremely pissed. For whatever reason idiots tend to assume superior status to me in particular.

If there's no IP barrier, the products can come back when the demand is back.

Which is one of the reasons I'm against copyright and of course reverse-engineering and modding and emulation being legally suppressed.

Say, one can easily understand how 90s' era of good old software and hardware ended. Modern business models there are more profitable. But those models lead to degeneracy, and they wouldn't be competitive if the old things were competitive for longer, and the old things would be if not for copyright. More paths is always better.

seeing what can be done with the tech to make each person’s experience unique, with bespoke quests and dialogue.

That being possible would be fundamentally a level up from what they are now. I've read a paper on this someone linked in a Lemmy thread a year or so ago.

Maybe one day playing a game like Skyrim for 10 years doesn’t have to mean playing the same quests over and over.

I think a more manual approach would work, of a world model like Crusader Kings has, with traits and ties and opinions and random events of NPCs between each other and towards the player, and that AI being used simply to rephrase and slightly adjust descriptions and sequences of events - then maybe.

But consider how many NPCs that means and how many others they meet in their simulated lives, and how hard it would be to debug a story line to ensure that it's always playable.

An LLM is not, strictly speaking, necessary here, and if used, doesn't make it easier.

Trade in to whom, to Linux users?.. Actually a good idea, not sure MS understood which almost logically complete advice they gave.

OK, I agree with that.

It's just funny that their understanding of Christianity is much more diverse (and removed from what's supposed to be true in their own churches) than it would be possibly allowable in times when religion was actually important in European societies.

I mean, if you were a dirty peasant goat farmer covered in rags, nobody would care even if you praised Odin.

But if you were a free man able to read, even more a learned man (irrelevant though), and were heard saying the smallest thing of what these people casually say, that meant problems. Not even with law.

I won't read the article now, but

arguing that true productivity lies in team performance, not individual brilliance

this is bullshit, a categorical statement.

There are good processes and there are bad processes. Good processes are usually functional for people of (sensibly) different mindsets and mental conditions. Bad processes are usually "one size fits all" in one way or another.

There are things a team can't have, and there are things a talented individual can't have.

There's also experience that covers holes one can't plan for, yep.

Weird kind of Christian in your book or not, it’s true.

It's not my book, but Christians are supposed to have read that book and know what the Christian faith is.

Otherwise they are a fan group.

BTW, what do your parents think of cremation, are they aware that in Christian faith that makes one's resurrection in the Apocalypse impossible?

OK, I guess it's not very useful, I think if I walk to a church and ask people passing through the entrance what their symbol of faith is, I won't get many good answers. If I provide them with a few real variants, they'll likely choose those of other Christian confessions. And if I ask those same people on schisms and heresies, they'll be very intolerant of heretics.

That would be a weird kind of Christians, the classical kind would want "promised land" to be Christian and consider "God's chosen people" to have been extended to them all.

And there are still Arab Christians, Orthodox and Maronite, mostly on the other side.

So nah, that's not it. Just racism maybe, but that's not religion.

Bombs exploding tend to hurt paper, fires tend to hurt paper, all the dust from shock waves tends to hurt paper, and bulldozers demolishing everything tend to hurt paper. If something survives that, then I still don't think so.

If you'll ask why, that's for the same reason as why nobody wrote such a comment about an Alawi or Christian girl from Tartus in the last few days\weeks, to my knowledge. The estimates are of like 30 000 dead already, it's likely more, many civilians are hiding on the Russian bases but you wouldn't expect Russia to protect people it vowed to protect.

Suffering in Gaza is real, but the reason you think about it is that it's convenient, those who suffer are Sunni, and those who kill them are of the general western alliance. It can't be resolved who has more rights between these people, the westerners have just a bit more than Sunnis, but Sunnis have enough to cause outrage. The rest - not a beep.

That's because Gaza is both real and an approved propaganda narrative. And if it weren't the latter, then who knows, maybe it weren't the former too and Israelis would have found somebody else to bomb.

You don't know Hamas' reasons for making their decisions. Maybe this was planned in any case, and Hamas just had one try at unbalancing Israel so that it would take more time and effort to kill Gaza.

Remember that IRL not all problems have satisfactory solutions. It's not a video game. Maybe to frighten Israelis one more time was the best they could do anyway.

All the separate components of what Israelis are doing they have done before, it's the scale which is different. They've gotten used to the thought that Gazan combatants won't come to their towns and kill them, but their army will come to Gaza and kill Gazans. Maybe this was meant to show that they are wrong, and they are murdering people equal to them, no other intention.

And even the emotion of that miserable jerk on the video is such, I think he wants to look like some Ottoman pasha. Israelis have no history (no, history of European\Maghreb\whatever Jews is not their history, no, of course history of some ancient kingdoms is not their history, and no, Ottoman history is not theirs too, all a bit further than needed), no culture (same as my previous parentheses, a culture is something alive, not a reference) and no national coherence (look at Israelis on the web), so they are just LARP'ing Ottomans.

What can this possibly have to do with religion?..

Before computing got poisoned.

Because Signal surely isn't based on works from 80s, yes.

I dunno, their take on Foundation is most attractive for me via thoughts of what could have been done with the same effort and funding and format, except being closer to the source and without glossiness and dizziness.

Why do we need that discussion, if it can be reduced to responsibility?

If something can be held responsible, then it can have all kinds of rights.

Then, of course, people making a decision to employ that responsible something in positions affecting lives are responsible for said decision.

I've read some weird paper about such an analog channel, where something quantum on both sides was used to create another analog signal used kinda as an encryption key. Stumbled upon it trying to understand some things about optics long ago.