The above poster is quoting Chinese government talking points on the issue. They're either a Chinese apologist, or much more likely, a government controlled account.
Note the huge number of blatant lies. "Relations are improving." No, we're currently at a time of heightened tension. Taiwan will be "forced to attack China and it's own expense." What kind of BS is that? Taiwan has never been forced to attack China, and there's no reason to think they ever will be. "after all, they are all Chinese". No, a large fraction of Taiwan's population don't consider themselves to be Chinese. In fact, Taiwan was only ever part of China for about 200 years, from the 17th century to the 19th. Before that they were independent. After that they were part of Japan. "In reality, the citizens of Taiwan can only ever be independent as a part of China." I think you're a bit confused about what the word "independent" means.
AMD's answer is CHIPLETS- lots of smaller chips sitting on the same substrate- so a 'chip' is improved by using more chiplets.
Chiplets are not an alternative to using a smaller process. They don't make your processor any faster or more efficient. A chip made up of chiplets doesn't work any better than a single larger chip.
There are two reasons that chiplets are useful. One is that you can mix different processes. Use a very expensive 7nm process for the performance critical parts of the chip, and a cheaper 12nm process for the parts that don't matter that much. The other is that it helps your yields. If you split a big chip up into four chiplets and there's a defect in one, you only have to throw out one of the four chiplets, instead of throwing out the whole chip.
Chiplets make it less expensive to move to a new process. But you still need to get that process working.
I think that was exactly the OP's point. They were pointing out (in an amazingly restrained and polite manner for Slashdot) that this article uses "socialism" to mean something totally different from how political scientists use the word. And it's really hard to have a reasoned discussion when people keep making up their own definitions for common terms.
Bank accounts require you to maintain a minimum balance, usually a few hundred dollars. If you go below that, they start charging monthly fees. For a 16 year old living with their parents, locking up a few hundred dollars where they can't touch it might not be a big deal. For a lot of people living below the poverty line, it's not an option. They don't have the money to put aside. That means no bank accounts and no debit cards.
Should I ask what "semi-official news sources" you read? No, I'm probably better off not knowing.
Anyway, just compare the lists of per-capita social spending to per-capita GDP. They're remarkably similar, aren't they? Seven of the top ten countries are the same on both lists. Of course it's hard to be sure what causes what. Maybe it's just that wealthy countries can afford to spend more. But that social spending at least doesn't seem to be hurting them. Besides, you can compensate by measuring social spending as a fraction of GDP. Five of the top ten are still in the top ten wealthiest countries in Europe.
The estimated lifespans for modern EV batteries can be as high as 1 million miles. See the second table under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Most EV batteries will outlast the cars they're in. And where are you getting that $1000 figure from? The average sales price of a used car is about $20,000.
"The message is: 'We don't need you. But we are nice, so we'll take care of you.'"
I think it goes deeper than that. The people in Silicon Valley understand where we're heading as well as anyone, so they know even their own jobs will eventually be automated. They also tend to be engineers and think like engineers: spot a problem, look for a solution. They see the problem, and conclude UBI is the most straightforward engineering solution to it. When no one has to work, you can't base income on work.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It doesn't say anything about who's performing the search. It says that being secure against searches is a right, and it "shall not be violated". Nothing in there about this only applying to searches by the government. How can anyone read that and claim it doesn't apply if the government gets a private company to do the searching for them?
Batteries are a huge fraction of the cost of an electric vehicle, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, making them far too expensive for most people to consider.
Not true. Even the pessimists expect EVs to reach price parity in about 5-7 years, and some industry executives expect it to happen much sooner. And that's just the upfront cost. Take into account the lower fuel and maintenance costs for EVs, as well as government incentives, and we already passed the point several years ago where EVs have a lower total cost of ownership in some places.
This is so true. Companies want you to think if they say one thing in big print where you're sure to see it, and something else in tiny print somewhere you'll never see it, the tiny print cancels out the big print. It doesn't. If they give you a "Buy" button and you click it to buy something, that means you bought it. Not rented. Bought.
What Microsoft is doing is just stealing, plain and simple. If I sell you something, I can't come back years later and say, "Hey, I've changed my mind about selling you that. I'm taking it back whether you like it or not. But don't worry, I'm giving you a refund in the form of credit you can use at my store." They should be sued into the ground for doing this, and those responsible should go to jail. That's what happens to normal people when they steal.
The politics seems so obvious but no one is pointing it out. Going back to the moon is great, but why five years? It absolutely must be done in that time and we'll do whatever it takes to make sure it isn't six? Of course there's a reason for that. If Trump gets reelected, that would mean it happens while he's president. In six years it wouldn't, and that's totally unacceptable.
Bulbs come in two styles: clear and frosted. You're describing the clear ones. I got a few of them, but didn't like them for the reason you said. Now I always make sure to get frosted ones. They don't have the problem.
Not true. LEDs actually have a much more uniform spectrum than CFLs. That's because the light you see is really coming from phosphors that absorb the (often ultraviolet) light from the LED and emit a broad spectrum.
$20 for an LED bulb? Unless it's a really special bulb, you're over paying. At my local grocery they cost just a few dollows and I've had no problems with them. My house is full of them, and I think I've only had maybe one fail ever.
Yes, that's the problem. You're assuming "recommended for you" should just mean "things most similar to what you already follow". If you follow a white supremacist, they should recommend more white supremacists to you. If you follow someone who promotes terrorism, they should recommend more people who promote terrorist. Yeah, that's a problem.
If you follow someone who promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines, it would be a lot better for them to recommend some authoritative sources that provide accurate information about vaccines.
Actually, we don't know that there are no hidden variables. Quite the contrary, lots of hidden variable theories are still consistent with all known experiments. You've probably been misled by the nonsense that gets published every time someone tries to do a new test of Bell's inequality. Most of those articles are just as confused as this one. Remember that all those "experimental proofs" that the wavefunction is real, that measurements are random, that hidden variables don't exist, and so on are actually based on a long list of assumptions. Locality, no retrocausality, no contextuality, fair sampling, and so on. None of those assumptions are justified in any way, either from theory or experiment. And at least one of them (fair sampling) is patently absurd.
Putting a laser on a satellite that can destroy things on the ground is really really hard. Putting a laser on the ground that can destroy satellites is much easier. Size and weight don't matter. You can hook it up to as big a power plant as you need. And you always know where your target is, unlike missiles that can be put on submarines that are really hard to track. You don't even need to destroy the satellite. Just hit it with enough light to blind its cameras so it can't target your missiles.
They seem to think they can solve the really hard problem, but China and Russia can't or won't solve the much easier problem. How is this possibly supposed to work?
You're not reversing time, but you are reversing entropy. I mean, that's kind of what living things do. They use energy sources to lower their own entropy. You're doing it constantly. If you stopped doing it, your entropy would start increasing and you'd die. It's very easy to decrease the entropy of a system, as long as you balance it out by dumping that entropy (and a little bit more for good measure) somewhere else.
The energy required to go from B to A probably caused a net increase in entropy.
Not probably, definitely. Thermodynamics isn't just a good idea, it's the law!
Who are "the Democrats"? I know a lot of people who belong to the Democratic party. I can't think of a single one I'd describe as a socialist. I haven't seen any polls suggesting they're unusual in that.
Maybe you mean the party leadership. Are you claiming Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are socialists? Seriously??? Sorry, but no. Not even close.
So when you say "the Democrats", I guess you mean some group that doesn't include either the party leaders or most members of the party. That's a very interesting use of language.
Maybe you just don't understand what socialism is. Maybe you somehow got the idea that Elizabeth Warren proposing to break up big tech companies makes her a socialist? It doesn't. If she were a socialist she would want to nationalize them, not break them up. The goal of breaking up monopolies is to increase competition. That's a totally capitalist goal, and basically the opposite of socialism.
If my data really belongs to me, how about letting me control it? I don't want a "dividend" from the money companies make by exploiting my data. I want them to stop exploiting my data. If you really mean what you say about my data belonging to me, I should be able to insist on that.
Slashdot Mirror
The above poster is quoting Chinese government talking points on the issue. They're either a Chinese apologist, or much more likely, a government controlled account.
Note the huge number of blatant lies. "Relations are improving." No, we're currently at a time of heightened tension. Taiwan will be "forced to attack China and it's own expense." What kind of BS is that? Taiwan has never been forced to attack China, and there's no reason to think they ever will be. "after all, they are all Chinese". No, a large fraction of Taiwan's population don't consider themselves to be Chinese. In fact, Taiwan was only ever part of China for about 200 years, from the 17th century to the 19th. Before that they were independent. After that they were part of Japan. "In reality, the citizens of Taiwan can only ever be independent as a part of China." I think you're a bit confused about what the word "independent" means.
AMD's answer is CHIPLETS- lots of smaller chips sitting on the same substrate- so a 'chip' is improved by using more chiplets.
Chiplets are not an alternative to using a smaller process. They don't make your processor any faster or more efficient. A chip made up of chiplets doesn't work any better than a single larger chip.
There are two reasons that chiplets are useful. One is that you can mix different processes. Use a very expensive 7nm process for the performance critical parts of the chip, and a cheaper 12nm process for the parts that don't matter that much. The other is that it helps your yields. If you split a big chip up into four chiplets and there's a defect in one, you only have to throw out one of the four chiplets, instead of throwing out the whole chip.
Chiplets make it less expensive to move to a new process. But you still need to get that process working.
I think that was exactly the OP's point. They were pointing out (in an amazingly restrained and polite manner for Slashdot) that this article uses "socialism" to mean something totally different from how political scientists use the word. And it's really hard to have a reasoned discussion when people keep making up their own definitions for common terms.
Bank accounts require you to maintain a minimum balance, usually a few hundred dollars. If you go below that, they start charging monthly fees. For a 16 year old living with their parents, locking up a few hundred dollars where they can't touch it might not be a big deal. For a lot of people living below the poverty line, it's not an option. They don't have the money to put aside. That means no bank accounts and no debit cards.
Should I ask what "semi-official news sources" you read? No, I'm probably better off not knowing.
Anyway, just compare the lists of per-capita social spending to per-capita GDP. They're remarkably similar, aren't they? Seven of the top ten countries are the same on both lists. Of course it's hard to be sure what causes what. Maybe it's just that wealthy countries can afford to spend more. But that social spending at least doesn't seem to be hurting them. Besides, you can compensate by measuring social spending as a fraction of GDP. Five of the top ten are still in the top ten wealthiest countries in Europe.
The estimated lifespans for modern EV batteries can be as high as 1 million miles. See the second table under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Most EV batteries will outlast the cars they're in. And where are you getting that $1000 figure from? The average sales price of a used car is about $20,000.
We'll find out soon enough who's right. Let's check back in five years and compare notes. Here are my predictions.
Battery prices will have continued to fall rapidly. Battery cells will be at or below the $100/kWh level (adjusted for inflation of course).
Worldwide EV sales will have continued to grow rapidly. At least 3x as many EVs will be sold in 2023 as in 2018, probably a lot more.
Sales of EVs will have surpassed sales of hybrids.
Post your own predictions, then put a note in your calendar to post again five years from today and we can see who's right.
Long term unsustainable? You do realize those countries have some of the strongest economies in Europe?
"The message is: 'We don't need you. But we are nice, so we'll take care of you.'"
I think it goes deeper than that. The people in Silicon Valley understand where we're heading as well as anyone, so they know even their own jobs will eventually be automated. They also tend to be engineers and think like engineers: spot a problem, look for a solution. They see the problem, and conclude UBI is the most straightforward engineering solution to it. When no one has to work, you can't base income on work.
Here is what the 4th amendment actually says.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It doesn't say anything about who's performing the search. It says that being secure against searches is a right, and it "shall not be violated". Nothing in there about this only applying to searches by the government. How can anyone read that and claim it doesn't apply if the government gets a private company to do the searching for them?
Batteries are a huge fraction of the cost of an electric vehicle, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, making them far too expensive for most people to consider.
Not true. Even the pessimists expect EVs to reach price parity in about 5-7 years, and some industry executives expect it to happen much sooner. And that's just the upfront cost. Take into account the lower fuel and maintenance costs for EVs, as well as government incentives, and we already passed the point several years ago where EVs have a lower total cost of ownership in some places.
"Everyone" is not moving to EVs. The top 3 selling vehicles in the US are pickup trucks.
What's the connection? Electric works just as well for pickups as anything else. Lots of electric pickups are due to come out in the next year or two.
This is so true. Companies want you to think if they say one thing in big print where you're sure to see it, and something else in tiny print somewhere you'll never see it, the tiny print cancels out the big print. It doesn't. If they give you a "Buy" button and you click it to buy something, that means you bought it. Not rented. Bought.
What Microsoft is doing is just stealing, plain and simple. If I sell you something, I can't come back years later and say, "Hey, I've changed my mind about selling you that. I'm taking it back whether you like it or not. But don't worry, I'm giving you a refund in the form of credit you can use at my store." They should be sued into the ground for doing this, and those responsible should go to jail. That's what happens to normal people when they steal.
If Trump gets reelected, he'll still be president in five years. In six years he won't be. That's the hurry.
The politics seems so obvious but no one is pointing it out. Going back to the moon is great, but why five years? It absolutely must be done in that time and we'll do whatever it takes to make sure it isn't six? Of course there's a reason for that. If Trump gets reelected, that would mean it happens while he's president. In six years it wouldn't, and that's totally unacceptable.
Bulbs come in two styles: clear and frosted. You're describing the clear ones. I got a few of them, but didn't like them for the reason you said. Now I always make sure to get frosted ones. They don't have the problem.
Not true. LEDs actually have a much more uniform spectrum than CFLs. That's because the light you see is really coming from phosphors that absorb the (often ultraviolet) light from the LED and emit a broad spectrum.
$20 for an LED bulb? Unless it's a really special bulb, you're over paying. At my local grocery they cost just a few dollows and I've had no problems with them. My house is full of them, and I think I've only had maybe one fail ever.
Yes, that's the problem. You're assuming "recommended for you" should just mean "things most similar to what you already follow". If you follow a white supremacist, they should recommend more white supremacists to you. If you follow someone who promotes terrorism, they should recommend more people who promote terrorist. Yeah, that's a problem.
If you follow someone who promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories about vaccines, it would be a lot better for them to recommend some authoritative sources that provide accurate information about vaccines.
The locality and freedom of choice loopholes can be removed by sufficiently seperating the events in space.
How is that? If the locality assumption is wrong, that means by definition that separating them in space doesn't make any difference..
Actually, we don't know that there are no hidden variables. Quite the contrary, lots of hidden variable theories are still consistent with all known experiments. You've probably been misled by the nonsense that gets published every time someone tries to do a new test of Bell's inequality. Most of those articles are just as confused as this one. Remember that all those "experimental proofs" that the wavefunction is real, that measurements are random, that hidden variables don't exist, and so on are actually based on a long list of assumptions. Locality, no retrocausality, no contextuality, fair sampling, and so on. None of those assumptions are justified in any way, either from theory or experiment. And at least one of them (fair sampling) is patently absurd.
Putting a laser on a satellite that can destroy things on the ground is really really hard. Putting a laser on the ground that can destroy satellites is much easier. Size and weight don't matter. You can hook it up to as big a power plant as you need. And you always know where your target is, unlike missiles that can be put on submarines that are really hard to track. You don't even need to destroy the satellite. Just hit it with enough light to blind its cameras so it can't target your missiles.
They seem to think they can solve the really hard problem, but China and Russia can't or won't solve the much easier problem. How is this possibly supposed to work?
You're not reversing time, but you are reversing entropy. I mean, that's kind of what living things do. They use energy sources to lower their own entropy. You're doing it constantly. If you stopped doing it, your entropy would start increasing and you'd die. It's very easy to decrease the entropy of a system, as long as you balance it out by dumping that entropy (and a little bit more for good measure) somewhere else.
The energy required to go from B to A probably caused a net increase in entropy.
Not probably, definitely. Thermodynamics isn't just a good idea, it's the law!
Who are "the Democrats"? I know a lot of people who belong to the Democratic party. I can't think of a single one I'd describe as a socialist. I haven't seen any polls suggesting they're unusual in that.
Maybe you mean the party leadership. Are you claiming Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are socialists? Seriously??? Sorry, but no. Not even close.
So when you say "the Democrats", I guess you mean some group that doesn't include either the party leaders or most members of the party. That's a very interesting use of language.
Maybe you just don't understand what socialism is. Maybe you somehow got the idea that Elizabeth Warren proposing to break up big tech companies makes her a socialist? It doesn't. If she were a socialist she would want to nationalize them, not break them up. The goal of breaking up monopolies is to increase competition. That's a totally capitalist goal, and basically the opposite of socialism.
If my data really belongs to me, how about letting me control it? I don't want a "dividend" from the money companies make by exploiting my data. I want them to stop exploiting my data. If you really mean what you say about my data belonging to me, I should be able to insist on that.