Things like monitors and small TVs, Bluetooth speakers, LED lamps, some games consoles, TV sound bars, external hard drives, low power computers, small kitchen appliances, wireless gamepads, battery chargers, stick battery cleaners... There are so many DC powered devices that could be USB-C.
The issues with cheap cables could be fixed with better chargers that detect the faults. Some of the more recent power delivery ICs seem to implementing this.
I don't like their jokes, they are pretty sick if you ask me. But for me the only reason to censor someone's work is if it's doing actual harm, and even then there has to be a balance.
I haven't seen the cartoons, or Rick and Morty, so I can't really give you a considered opinion on this specific case. I was more interested in the difference between criticising a joke and calling for people to be locked up over one, with an outraged moral justification to back it up.
Wouldn't it be great if the government offered that training and support, just without the obligation to go fight in whatever random wars happen in that 4 years.
I guess I should have said "people of one race are consistently superior to people of another race in some important area of cognitive ability", to make the point clearer.
There would be a certain amount of resistance to that, but only because we have been there before and found that such claims tend to be unfounded. When repeated similar claims have been made by people who are not doing good quality research in good faith, and there is a large body of contrary evidence, you can see why people would be skeptical.
Having said that, there are some acknowledged cognitive differences between sexes, for example. The consensus is that they are minor and that most of what is popularly considered innate differences are actually due to social factors. That is widely accepted and in fact used as evidence by people interested in social justice - for example, in response to James Damore's memo the research he cited was also cited by critics pointing out that it concluded that the differences he described were extremely small and unlikely to have any impact on a woman's ability to work as an engineer at Google, or justify the changes he was proposing.
A minority of students (about 20%, according to recent research)
Do you have a reference for this? Aside from anything else, I'm interested to know what kind of research gathers this data and what it uses it for.
More over, I don't really see any issue with things like reasonable trigger warnings. Some people have PTSD, it's like any other kind of illness or disability and should not limit their access to education as far as is reasonably possible. It's not even a new thing, when I was at school many moons ago the teacher warned us that we would be doing dissection next week and if anyone wanted to opt out they could. I remember one kid who lost someone in a car accident a couple of years earlier didn't want to be reminded of that.
Reasonable safe spaces are similar, I mean most people would expect sessions with their therapist or doctor to be private.
Dis-inviting people I'm not keen on. I think that most people should be allowed to speak, of course. The only exceptions are people like Yianopolis, who are a danger to students. His habit of outing students against their will is a safety issue.
Rationalists don't think much of Carl Benjamin, AKA Sargon of Akkad
I know, but you are just making an appeal to authority... Specifically the authority of whoever last edited Rational Wiki.
What are you saying here, that Carl would be banned from TU because he's not a real rationalist or because his fact based reasoning game isn't up to scratch? I'm guessing not, but then you have to also accept that Sargon has 800k Youtube subscribers and makes $8000/month from Patreon alone, so it's quite likely that his ideas and arguments would thrive at this hypothetical university.
Maybe education would help the students there see him for what he is, but I'm not so sure. He does get invited to speak at universities, just like Peterson and the rest.
their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time
It's funny how you didn't give us a single example of someone complaining about a joke made by the military so that we could verify and judge their complaint for ourselves, yet you did prove unambiguously that you feel tasteless jokes should result in them being locked up.
Criticising jokes is rather more tolerant than calling for the people making them to be locked up. One is exercising free speech to express an opinion and create a dialogue, the other is suggesting that their speech is so offensive that force should be used to restrain and censor it.
That would be something new for Apple then. As it is if you buy an iPhone in say China it comes with the same software as one bought in Europe and one bought in the US. You can change the language to English, get all the software updates etc. when using it outside China. App Store uses geolocation to restrict your selection of apps, changes when you physically move the phone somewhere else.
I think even the 4G bands it supports are the same world wide.
This does have the advantage that if your phone has an issue you can go to any Apple Store in the world and they can either fix it or swap it for a referb. Maybe the cut-price Indian models won't support that.
Suppose, for example, that some highly qualified, methodical and determinedly unbiased researcher has conducted a brilliant set of experiments which appear to show that people of one race are consistently superior to people of another race in some important way. The work appears to be extremely well-conceived and well-executed. Now think about which universities you're familiar with would be interested in employing her and funding her research. TU would care only about the quality of her research. SJU would give at least as much weight to the potential social impact.
This is actually quite common, especially in medical and sports sciences. I don't really see any evidence of people arguing for, say, more diversity among Olympic finalist short distance sprinters or for women to participate in the Rugby World Cup, for example. Reason being that it's well understood that at those levels biological differences are an issue.
Where you do see it is where biology and medical science can't explain non-white athletes are under represented in things like cycling or motor racing, and where there are very clear issues preventing not just non-whites but also just poorer people in general and women from participating. And really Truth U would have to agree there, there isn't any reasonable counter-argument.
If social justice was not interested in truth, rational argument and careful wide-ranging research without artificial limits then it wouldn't be so strong in academia. It would be like the self-proclaimed "rationals", starting petitions against universities teaching stuff they disagree with.
That just trains users to blindly click "use recommended settings" all the time. Within about a week of Microsoft rolling that screen out you started seeing malware requesting permissions from the user with "use recommended settings" or "accept (recommended)". Worst of all, having gone with the recommendation the next pop-up from Windows asking them to confirm if they are really really sure also becomes a blind click-through.
Besides which, I don't see any value in such a screen when the settings menu is two clicks away and power users are going in there anyway.
The net effect of such a regulatory regime would simply be a shattering of the Internet, as people move to P2P platforms, encryption, and other tools to avoid government censorship of the kind he advocates.
It wouldn't. They already have this in China, and most people just use the normal, censored, tracked and monitored internet without any protection or even any worry about it. They think it's a good thing, for their protection. They will boast about how little crime there is because the government is protecting them.
It's only a minority who bother with Tor or VPNs, and merely using them is a crime in itself.
Foreign countries interfering with our democracies using fake accounts. Trolling getting to the point where people are dying e.g. swatting. Endless scams (Nigerian princes etc.), phishing...
The internet isn't some magical other dimension, it's just a part of everyday life and part of its immense power is that things that happen online have real world consequences. And that includes what bad actors get up to.
Personally I don't like this scheme because it's impractical and would give authorities far more power than car licence plates do, but the other extreme isn't much better.
I've been lucky enough to be doing my hobbies for work a couple of times. It's great but the thing is it never lasts. Commercial considerations always come in eventually.
So I agree, if our interests align that's great for both of us and you will see some real passion, but that's an added bonus and in no way a substitute for salary. At best it's a reason not to go looking for more interesting work.
Having said that, man are we lucky. At the bottom end of the job market perks like a decent kitchen and free coffee really matter, but not as much as being able to pay the rent.
the way to counter the argument is to show that they are based in truth
That belief is why alternative facts are such a powerful weapon. For an extreme example look at the flat earth movement, they often cite carefully selected and distorted "scientific evidence" that the world is in fact a disc.
Many politicians and, dare I say it, social justice warriors like Jordan Peterson have build careers around doing that. They are very effective too, people don't notice the tricks they use such as claiming that anything which undermines their position is the result of the person making the counter argument not understanding their position, or simply denying they ever said/meant it in the first place.
This reason this works is that spurious arguments are easy to make, but getting to the truth requires a deep understanding of the issues and a lot of work. There may be decades of academic study on X, but making a simple and sophistic argument that the listener can nod along to and feel smug/outraged at the idiots about is always more effective than "try reading X, Y and Z".
Often debunking is rejected anywhere even when the argument is perfect. Look at people like Peterson or Benjamin or Watson... Widely debunked, but with little effect.
The humans got lazy. They saw the computer was doing their job for them and just went with it.
This always happens. Look at cars with auto-steering, people quickly decide they don't really need to pay attention any more and that's/their lives/ on the line, let alone some anonymous bank customer's financial ruin.
HDDs are probably not the best long term storage medium. The mechanical parts degrade, they are vulnerably to magnetic fields, and if they fail the chances of being able to fix them in a decade or more are low unless you have serious cash and equipment available. Even the data encoding format on the discs is proprietary so building your own reader will be tricky.
BluRay is probably the best all round option for now. Archival grade BluRay is cheap and robust. No moving parts, no issues with magnets, the standard is open enough to be reproducible in 100 years although drives will probably still be around. And of course if one drive fails you can try another.
COM ports are still alive and well. Okay, they are often USB to COM port now rather than PCI or ISA to COM port, but for example Windows 10 made major improvements to the USB COM port driver.
RS232 is still very much a thing, especially in industry. It's robust, easy, everything has it or can add it at minimal cost... Perhaps USB's biggest failing was being too complex and frankly a bit half baked in the early days.
declared themselves to be dedicated to social justice
Um... So what? Courts are dedicated to justice, many places are dedicated to equality... Those are good things.
There is this weird idea going around that you can't make any kind of judgement on any issue any more, you have to tolerate everything. That's ridiculous, clearly you can't tolerate being kicked in the crotch and it's absolutely right to make a judgement that crotch kicking is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I said "most".
Things like monitors and small TVs, Bluetooth speakers, LED lamps, some games consoles, TV sound bars, external hard drives, low power computers, small kitchen appliances, wireless gamepads, battery chargers, stick battery cleaners... There are so many DC powered devices that could be USB-C.
Wireless charging is great in some scenarios.
In car charger, put your phone down and drive. Use an app to automatically turn on Bluetooth or at an auto call reject up too.
In public areas where USB ports would get heavy use, and where you don't want to risk a data connection.
The issues with cheap cables could be fixed with better chargers that detect the faults. Some of the more recent power delivery ICs seem to implementing this.
USB-C should be able to charge most stuff. With up to 100W of power delivery there are few devices that need more power or higher voltages.
Make everything USB-C. One day you won't even need to take your chargers with you, everywhere that has mains power will have USB-C 100W outlets too.
The market looked like it was converging a decade ago and didn't. Manufacturers were told to sort it out, and didn't.
51k tonnes/year of electronic waste is significant. No need to excuse it with what-about-ism.
Sure you need a military, but do you need such an incredibly powerful and expensive one?
I don't like their jokes, they are pretty sick if you ask me. But for me the only reason to censor someone's work is if it's doing actual harm, and even then there has to be a balance.
I haven't seen the cartoons, or Rick and Morty, so I can't really give you a considered opinion on this specific case. I was more interested in the difference between criticising a joke and calling for people to be locked up over one, with an outraged moral justification to back it up.
Wouldn't it be great if the government offered that training and support, just without the obligation to go fight in whatever random wars happen in that 4 years.
I guess I should have said "people of one race are consistently superior to people of another race in some important area of cognitive ability", to make the point clearer.
There would be a certain amount of resistance to that, but only because we have been there before and found that such claims tend to be unfounded. When repeated similar claims have been made by people who are not doing good quality research in good faith, and there is a large body of contrary evidence, you can see why people would be skeptical.
Having said that, there are some acknowledged cognitive differences between sexes, for example. The consensus is that they are minor and that most of what is popularly considered innate differences are actually due to social factors. That is widely accepted and in fact used as evidence by people interested in social justice - for example, in response to James Damore's memo the research he cited was also cited by critics pointing out that it concluded that the differences he described were extremely small and unlikely to have any impact on a woman's ability to work as an engineer at Google, or justify the changes he was proposing.
A minority of students (about 20%, according to recent research)
Do you have a reference for this? Aside from anything else, I'm interested to know what kind of research gathers this data and what it uses it for.
More over, I don't really see any issue with things like reasonable trigger warnings. Some people have PTSD, it's like any other kind of illness or disability and should not limit their access to education as far as is reasonably possible. It's not even a new thing, when I was at school many moons ago the teacher warned us that we would be doing dissection next week and if anyone wanted to opt out they could. I remember one kid who lost someone in a car accident a couple of years earlier didn't want to be reminded of that.
Reasonable safe spaces are similar, I mean most people would expect sessions with their therapist or doctor to be private.
Dis-inviting people I'm not keen on. I think that most people should be allowed to speak, of course. The only exceptions are people like Yianopolis, who are a danger to students. His habit of outing students against their will is a safety issue.
Rationalists don't think much of Carl Benjamin, AKA Sargon of Akkad
I know, but you are just making an appeal to authority... Specifically the authority of whoever last edited Rational Wiki.
What are you saying here, that Carl would be banned from TU because he's not a real rationalist or because his fact based reasoning game isn't up to scratch? I'm guessing not, but then you have to also accept that Sargon has 800k Youtube subscribers and makes $8000/month from Patreon alone, so it's quite likely that his ideas and arguments would thrive at this hypothetical university.
Maybe education would help the students there see him for what he is, but I'm not so sure. He does get invited to speak at universities, just like Peterson and the rest.
I view the VPN bill as part of the basic cost of my internet connection.
their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time
It's funny how you didn't give us a single example of someone complaining about a joke made by the military so that we could verify and judge their complaint for ourselves, yet you did prove unambiguously that you feel tasteless jokes should result in them being locked up.
Criticising jokes is rather more tolerant than calling for the people making them to be locked up. One is exercising free speech to express an opinion and create a dialogue, the other is suggesting that their speech is so offensive that force should be used to restrain and censor it.
That would be something new for Apple then. As it is if you buy an iPhone in say China it comes with the same software as one bought in Europe and one bought in the US. You can change the language to English, get all the software updates etc. when using it outside China. App Store uses geolocation to restrict your selection of apps, changes when you physically move the phone somewhere else.
I think even the 4G bands it supports are the same world wide.
This does have the advantage that if your phone has an issue you can go to any Apple Store in the world and they can either fix it or swap it for a referb. Maybe the cut-price Indian models won't support that.
Suppose, for example, that some highly qualified, methodical and determinedly unbiased researcher has conducted a brilliant set of experiments which appear to show that people of one race are consistently superior to people of another race in some important way. The work appears to be extremely well-conceived and well-executed. Now think about which universities you're familiar with would be interested in employing her and funding her research. TU would care only about the quality of her research. SJU would give at least as much weight to the potential social impact.
This is actually quite common, especially in medical and sports sciences. I don't really see any evidence of people arguing for, say, more diversity among Olympic finalist short distance sprinters or for women to participate in the Rugby World Cup, for example. Reason being that it's well understood that at those levels biological differences are an issue.
Where you do see it is where biology and medical science can't explain non-white athletes are under represented in things like cycling or motor racing, and where there are very clear issues preventing not just non-whites but also just poorer people in general and women from participating. And really Truth U would have to agree there, there isn't any reasonable counter-argument.
If social justice was not interested in truth, rational argument and careful wide-ranging research without artificial limits then it wouldn't be so strong in academia. It would be like the self-proclaimed "rationals", starting petitions against universities teaching stuff they disagree with.
That just trains users to blindly click "use recommended settings" all the time. Within about a week of Microsoft rolling that screen out you started seeing malware requesting permissions from the user with "use recommended settings" or "accept (recommended)". Worst of all, having gone with the recommendation the next pop-up from Windows asking them to confirm if they are really really sure also becomes a blind click-through.
Besides which, I don't see any value in such a screen when the settings menu is two clicks away and power users are going in there anyway.
The net effect of such a regulatory regime would simply be a shattering of the Internet, as people move to P2P platforms, encryption, and other tools to avoid government censorship of the kind he advocates.
It wouldn't. They already have this in China, and most people just use the normal, censored, tracked and monitored internet without any protection or even any worry about it. They think it's a good thing, for their protection. They will boast about how little crime there is because the government is protecting them.
It's only a minority who bother with Tor or VPNs, and merely using them is a crime in itself.
The internet has gotten along well so far...
Has it?
Foreign countries interfering with our democracies using fake accounts. Trolling getting to the point where people are dying e.g. swatting. Endless scams (Nigerian princes etc.), phishing...
The internet isn't some magical other dimension, it's just a part of everyday life and part of its immense power is that things that happen online have real world consequences. And that includes what bad actors get up to.
Personally I don't like this scheme because it's impractical and would give authorities far more power than car licence plates do, but the other extreme isn't much better.
What do the people with disabilities and health issues that prevent them from going river rafting, skiing and hang gliding get?
Obviously a Playstation guy.
I've been lucky enough to be doing my hobbies for work a couple of times. It's great but the thing is it never lasts. Commercial considerations always come in eventually.
So I agree, if our interests align that's great for both of us and you will see some real passion, but that's an added bonus and in no way a substitute for salary. At best it's a reason not to go looking for more interesting work.
Having said that, man are we lucky. At the bottom end of the job market perks like a decent kitchen and free coffee really matter, but not as much as being able to pay the rent.
the way to counter the argument is to show that they are based in truth
That belief is why alternative facts are such a powerful weapon. For an extreme example look at the flat earth movement, they often cite carefully selected and distorted "scientific evidence" that the world is in fact a disc.
Many politicians and, dare I say it, social justice warriors like Jordan Peterson have build careers around doing that. They are very effective too, people don't notice the tricks they use such as claiming that anything which undermines their position is the result of the person making the counter argument not understanding their position, or simply denying they ever said/meant it in the first place.
This reason this works is that spurious arguments are easy to make, but getting to the truth requires a deep understanding of the issues and a lot of work. There may be decades of academic study on X, but making a simple and sophistic argument that the listener can nod along to and feel smug/outraged at the idiots about is always more effective than "try reading X, Y and Z".
Often debunking is rejected anywhere even when the argument is perfect. Look at people like Peterson or Benjamin or Watson... Widely debunked, but with little effect.
Speaking of the west, I wonder how they will prevent people buying those phones cheap and exporting them?
The humans got lazy. They saw the computer was doing their job for them and just went with it.
This always happens. Look at cars with auto-steering, people quickly decide they don't really need to pay attention any more and that's /their lives/ on the line, let alone some anonymous bank customer's financial ruin.
HDDs are probably not the best long term storage medium. The mechanical parts degrade, they are vulnerably to magnetic fields, and if they fail the chances of being able to fix them in a decade or more are low unless you have serious cash and equipment available. Even the data encoding format on the discs is proprietary so building your own reader will be tricky.
BluRay is probably the best all round option for now. Archival grade BluRay is cheap and robust. No moving parts, no issues with magnets, the standard is open enough to be reproducible in 100 years although drives will probably still be around. And of course if one drive fails you can try another.
COM ports are still alive and well. Okay, they are often USB to COM port now rather than PCI or ISA to COM port, but for example Windows 10 made major improvements to the USB COM port driver.
RS232 is still very much a thing, especially in industry. It's robust, easy, everything has it or can add it at minimal cost... Perhaps USB's biggest failing was being too complex and frankly a bit half baked in the early days.
declared themselves to be dedicated to social justice
Um... So what? Courts are dedicated to justice, many places are dedicated to equality... Those are good things.
There is this weird idea going around that you can't make any kind of judgement on any issue any more, you have to tolerate everything. That's ridiculous, clearly you can't tolerate being kicked in the crotch and it's absolutely right to make a judgement that crotch kicking is bad.