It once occurred to me that a device for universe simulation would require mass. We're used to abstractions - a few "pixels" (a few binary blips, a few microns on a chip) can represent the concept of a ball, or a city, or a planet, but a few dots of light on a screen don't literally reproduce it. The microns won't do. Replicating means storing and calculating on every possible attribute and property.
The most optimized method to track and represent the innumerable qualities of every little quark is the original matter itself, so the host universe would need a construct with at least as much mass as the subject sim to operate. 10^82 atoms to perfectly simulate 10^82 atoms. In practice it would take more, to include underlying systems and architecture below, to have a control space running and tracking things. CS types might articulate that better. I haven't the engineering to speculate on theoretical caps for energy. I guess playing out a canned computation can be kept slim on energy when using alternative mechanical means. Maybe what you need is very little energy, maybe all you need is a very carefully stacked deck and a lever labeled "Start".
All said, it remains that few assumptions can be made about the host universe, which could be relatively supermassive, and involve existences suited to said scale. At this point we pass even scifi. I'm young, but a few years too old to sit with the college potheads that should take it from here.
Offering a $100 water bottle to someone dying in the desert is overpriced. You people are deliberately spreading this bullshit about "There's no such thing as 'overpriced' we can charge anything for anything".
Using the imaginary property racket to monopolize a $500 pill is overpriced. Oops, someone found a functional reprint and is giving it away, now your angry shareholders are gonna have you black bagged.
I'm gonna say all of the above is true, simultaneously. You could debate about whether he's "a joke", or how much so, but legit or not his shenanigans are good for a laugh, which is more than I can say about the rackets and exploitation and malice of most Tech/Corporate headlines.
I was going to do Shocked! but you've gone and beat me to it.
If they can, they will. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do we think automated, dragnet surveillance knows the difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" (as if there was some binary, defining property)? Why do we think we Totes Dodge The Bullet because we clicked some "No thanks" checkbox with carefully phrased wording?
Security doesn't have this problem. When they see an access, they assume everything's been hoovered up. Why would it not? When they see a vulnerability, a potential means of discernment, they assume it WILL be used and must be corrected until inaccessible.
Inaccessible in their vocabulary means hard walls, not words and paper walls.
I'm thinking of America's for-profit healthcare system combined with "we demand you give him the best" snowflakes. THAT affects others more than a bit of odor at the bus station.
There's going to be/something/ about you I don't like. Some of us learn to not make that a dealbreaker. Usually as schoolchildren, but late beats never.
Definitely decades to be so ubiquitous and AI'd that labor is so dead even robodigging is cheap.
If the goalposts are "market disruption" we're already there though. Why hire proles that need paychecks and benefits? All that matters is your bottom line, so the only number you need to know is how much upfront a robopicker costs.
Turns out the answer is "not cheap yet". Big Corporate does it, sure (even though they're quite good at using bottom tier humans like tissues) but because they know how to play long game; They don't skimp on parts.
>$2400/month sounds alot more than basic
Mind that anywhere a BUI deploys you will see the price of everything go up. Necessities least, probably increasing in proportion to luxury.
Jobless BUI commoners will be able to afford their rice rations. Those of us who caught a musical chair in the paycheck club will be able to afford the spike in beef with our second income.
>grammatically correct usage
Wasn't challenged. GP was just snarking in an "as opposed to?", also as a legitimately structured observation. It only rustles your jimmies if you know the intent behind the words.
Feel free to declare "intended meaning was retarded". GP found a subtle way to do the same.
This isn't even a science lesson - too many people can't separate art and artist, message and messenger. Hell, the next headline over probably has bickering over an AC not using a "real name".
I think your stitch is you're blurring the lab and the factory. You start talking science but your real beef is with the "money machine". A lab can literally turn lead into gold. Corporate will sell you foil and faux.
"Natural" will come out over factory-made since it can't be matched by profitable means. We stuff in salt and fat and syrup because it's cheaper, not because it's smarter. Don't misattribute the substitutions Hershey's Chocolate uses.
"Organic" is inferior to good manipulation. But that isn't where the margin is, so arguably it "doesn't exist", only cashgrab factory dreck.
Half of you in that hour-long squabble up there could've saved some effort by adding it to your vocabulary. It's hard to make a point when you spend an extra paragraph trying to explain a distinction that we already have a word for. If you want a point to get through, concise is the only way. "Verbose micdrop" is an oxymoron. I don't twitter (or any socnet) but I'm pretty sure it's an art over there.
Anyway, regardless of whether piracy is "right" or whatever, the article's point is to drop hard numbers about whether it's "important". Significant, whatever.
>violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Unfortunately, this series of words lost all meaning years ago and doesn't tell me if anything really happened.
I'll let the flame wars decide if something did, I'm just here to mock those seven.
Slashdot Mirror
It once occurred to me that a device for universe simulation would require mass. We're used to abstractions - a few "pixels" (a few binary blips, a few microns on a chip) can represent the concept of a ball, or a city, or a planet, but a few dots of light on a screen don't literally reproduce it. The microns won't do. Replicating means storing and calculating on every possible attribute and property.
The most optimized method to track and represent the innumerable qualities of every little quark is the original matter itself, so the host universe would need a construct with at least as much mass as the subject sim to operate. 10^82 atoms to perfectly simulate 10^82 atoms. In practice it would take more, to include underlying systems and architecture below, to have a control space running and tracking things. CS types might articulate that better. I haven't the engineering to speculate on theoretical caps for energy. I guess playing out a canned computation can be kept slim on energy when using alternative mechanical means. Maybe what you need is very little energy, maybe all you need is a very carefully stacked deck and a lever labeled "Start".
All said, it remains that few assumptions can be made about the host universe, which could be relatively supermassive, and involve existences suited to said scale. At this point we pass even scifi. I'm young, but a few years too old to sit with the college potheads that should take it from here.
"Superior" is the exact, "specific" height of causation, the only consequence they care about. With good reason.
Yes, the value of labor is gone. Good luck supporting anything with it after 2030. Good luck, Prolekistan, you have nothing to export.
And we all know what happens to populations in countries with nothing to export.
Offering a $100 water bottle to someone dying in the desert is overpriced. You people are deliberately spreading this bullshit about "There's no such thing as 'overpriced' we can charge anything for anything".
Using the imaginary property racket to monopolize a $500 pill is overpriced. Oops, someone found a functional reprint and is giving it away, now your angry shareholders are gonna have you black bagged.
There's already a TLDR for this.
"I've got mine screw you"
He probably THINKS he killed his neighbor and scuttled his speedboat just to hide the evidence.
Fortunately the apologetic flowers he sends the widow every year are black, so Bill is more confused than suspicious.
I'm gonna say all of the above is true, simultaneously. You could debate about whether he's "a joke", or how much so, but legit or not his shenanigans are good for a laugh, which is more than I can say about the rackets and exploitation and malice of most Tech/Corporate headlines.
Young millennial here, from where I'm sitting it's always been a private-club racket. I can still sense how it used to be, though.
I was going to do Shocked! but you've gone and beat me to it.
If they can, they will. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do we think automated, dragnet surveillance knows the difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" (as if there was some binary, defining property)? Why do we think we Totes Dodge The Bullet because we clicked some "No thanks" checkbox with carefully phrased wording?
Security doesn't have this problem. When they see an access, they assume everything's been hoovered up. Why would it not? When they see a vulnerability, a potential means of discernment, they assume it WILL be used and must be corrected until inaccessible.
Inaccessible in their vocabulary means hard walls, not words and paper walls.
You're probably thinking of second-hand toxin.
I'm thinking of America's for-profit healthcare system combined with "we demand you give him the best" snowflakes. THAT affects others more than a bit of odor at the bus station.
Someone already made the "21 years" joke.
*tries to imagine sound effect*
Really? I didn't think we were all that oblivious to the fifty-cent club. I've seen it mix with other slurs for shills.
Scorn and mockery make a lot of sense to be picked as control mechanism for astroturfing, mind.
There's going to be /something/ about you I don't like. Some of us learn to not make that a dealbreaker. Usually as schoolchildren, but late beats never.
You guys keep trying that multiplication, as if it won't be child's play to pluck the money right back out of them.
Definitely decades to be so ubiquitous and AI'd that labor is so dead even robodigging is cheap.
If the goalposts are "market disruption" we're already there though. Why hire proles that need paychecks and benefits? All that matters is your bottom line, so the only number you need to know is how much upfront a robopicker costs.
Turns out the answer is "not cheap yet". Big Corporate does it, sure (even though they're quite good at using bottom tier humans like tissues) but because they know how to play long game; They don't skimp on parts.
>$2400/month sounds alot more than basic
Mind that anywhere a BUI deploys you will see the price of everything go up. Necessities least, probably increasing in proportion to luxury.
Jobless BUI commoners will be able to afford their rice rations. Those of us who caught a musical chair in the paycheck club will be able to afford the spike in beef with our second income.
There there, I'm sure they'll have convincing stories about other targets that must be, NEED to be sued. As it was, as it will always be.
And I suppose you think sophisticated books and films are an oxymoron.
>grammatically correct usage
Wasn't challenged. GP was just snarking in an "as opposed to?", also as a legitimately structured observation. It only rustles your jimmies if you know the intent behind the words.
Feel free to declare "intended meaning was retarded". GP found a subtle way to do the same.
Data is independent of who voices it.
This isn't even a science lesson - too many people can't separate art and artist, message and messenger. Hell, the next headline over probably has bickering over an AC not using a "real name".
I think your stitch is you're blurring the lab and the factory. You start talking science but your real beef is with the "money machine". A lab can literally turn lead into gold. Corporate will sell you foil and faux.
"Natural" will come out over factory-made since it can't be matched by profitable means. We stuff in salt and fat and syrup because it's cheaper, not because it's smarter. Don't misattribute the substitutions Hershey's Chocolate uses.
"Organic" is inferior to good manipulation. But that isn't where the margin is, so arguably it "doesn't exist", only cashgrab factory dreck.
Deprivation.
Half of you in that hour-long squabble up there could've saved some effort by adding it to your vocabulary. It's hard to make a point when you spend an extra paragraph trying to explain a distinction that we already have a word for. If you want a point to get through, concise is the only way. "Verbose micdrop" is an oxymoron. I don't twitter (or any socnet) but I'm pretty sure it's an art over there.
Anyway, regardless of whether piracy is "right" or whatever, the article's point is to drop hard numbers about whether it's "important". Significant, whatever.
>violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Unfortunately, this series of words lost all meaning years ago and doesn't tell me if anything really happened.
I'll let the flame wars decide if something did, I'm just here to mock those seven.
You sound like one of those "non-practicing entities".
Which is funny because that's almost the same wording normal humans say about you.