So basically similar to the Super Gameboy, but with a NES instead of SNES as the host and an (emulated) SNES instead of a GB as the guest.
and with a PiZero (powerpoint presentation) or a Pi3 (SNES game) driving DIRECTLY THE ROM BUS - and that's the freaking awesome part.
He's not writing to a dual-ported RAM that then the PPU reads instead of ROM (like tons of official games from Nintendo do), he's feeding the PPU input straight from the Raspberry Pis. He's basically emulating what the ROM chips would be answering to the PPU, *entirely in software* (no ASICs involved unlike classical Nintendo examples).
In other ways : - the SNES emulation is just a party trick for fun. - the "REVERSE EMULATION" part, is that he's emulating what a PPU ROM in a real cartridge would be doing, entirely in software, using Pi GPIO PINs.
It's not the first time even. Some of the special ASICs used in official NES cartridges by Nintendo did feed programmable RAM instead of ROM to the PPU. Wikipedia mentions Zelda and Castlevania that use the MMC1 to map RAM so they can animate backgrounds by modifying tiles. Other posts here mention Mario 3 using ASIC for multidirectional scrolling, etc. (And that for the NES only. Then the SNES came with its co-processors embed in cartridges, be it SuperFX accelerator, or the Super Gameboy cartridge)
So if you feel that Tom7's trick is cheating, Nintendo has been doing it for much longer.
But the novelties are :
- instead of using a special ASIC like most of the examples from Nintendo (save for the SGB), Tom7 is using a general purpose CPU (like the Z80 in the SGB).
- instead of using some special access to the PPU (like any example from Nintendo) Tom7's attempts try to drive the PPU straight from the Pi's GPIO pins.
- thus the latency problems that classic Nintendo problems avoid (using ASIC and RAM with a reasonable latency), requiring Tom7 to be creative (predict what the PPU will attempt to read, so by the time the PPU is reading it, the Pi has the answer ready on its simulated ROM bus)
Your Comcast remote is only outputting codes recognized by your tv, bd, receiver, etc; it does not send a signal to your cable box saying it is turning on another device. Research how universal remotes work.
Speaking how (any) remote work, the end effect turns up to be the opposite :
IR light is IR light, no matter what the logo on the remote say. IR light is only relatively targeted (it's not an IR *laser*, it's a IR *LED*, and its light bounces nicely off most light-coloured walls. Test it : instead of pointing the IR at the TV, you can also control it by pointing at a white wall behind you. Basically, the device detects undirected IR blinks.)
So as long as the comcast box isn't in an entirely different room, chances are its IR sensor will see the IR light too.
It's only because its a different *code*, the comcast box knows that it's not destined to it.
But to reach that point, the IR light has already been sensed and the pulse-train has already been decoded into a code, which has correctly been identified as a "target device-specific command". At that point the box know pretty well you've been pushing the "On" button. It's an information that could be beamed to the mothership if the firmware is designed to do so.
And then there's an entire different beast lurking there : most of modern devices are linked through HMDI cables, HDMI supports CEC commands.
Basically:
- the comcast is already aware if the TV is off - as the TV is already saying so over CEC.
- lots of devices are able to forward commands over CEC (e.g.: the TV should be able to ask the Comcast box to turn on if you select its HDMI input) so in fact, no matter how IR universal remotes work, the devices can already send commands to each other on the HDMI network.
That would only make sense if something ever visibly changed on Facebook.
Facebook (the company) has visibly copied several features from the Snapchat (app) into their own collection of apps :
- Instastories (ephemeral "top posts" by users) is basically on of the main features lifted from Snapchat.
- Status posts in WhatsApp is yet another attempt at the same features in yet another Facebook-owned app.
- Instagram also cloned nearly identically lots of post-processing that Snapchat. Instead of sticking to the "color filiter to copy the crappy quality of old photo gears used by hipsters" that initially started Instagram, there are now emoji stickers, effects, etc.
Basically Mark Zuckerberg knows that nothing is eternal. He has seen how MySpace eventually went out of fashion and how the generation after that went to Facebook. He knows that Facebook won't be eternal neither, and that eventually people will move to something else, too : Most of its userbase has now become moms and dads, and their kids aren't hanging in the some online places.
Mark has thus been fervently buying all the things showing chances of being "the next big thing". As WhatsApp and Intagram started to become popular among milenials, they where acquired by Facebook. It turned to be a wise strategy : they are now major social networks.
But then came Snapchat - the thing that is currently popular with kids. Except that this time round, despite all his offers and attempts, the Zuck couldn't buy them.
So, cloning the most popular feature from Snapchat into the apps that Facebook owns has been the alternative strategy to retain user base as much as possible. Snapchat became popular with kids for two reasons : the perceived ephemeral messages (there is no "history", once it's gone, it's supposed to be definitely gone. And not everyone is a/. geek enough to know that nothing is really ever gone online) and the crazy amount of real-time video manipulation filters, stickers, etc. Facebook cloned as much of it as possible.
The thing with diseases that get regularly checked, is that it doesn't make *that much* importance if they are missed on the first check.
5% is a large percentage, but some of these could be picked up by the dermatologist supervising the exam (if there's one on the premice) and some of those 5% will eventually be picked up during next year's check, or the year after that. (so 12 or 24 months later, which is still within the 28 months median time before metastasis, at which point the disease turn fatal. Meaning that we're considering 0.05 ^ 3 [people missed after 3 tests in a row spread over 24 months] * 0.5 [portion of them who potentially developped metastasis] = 6.25 per million. That is still a lot of potentially future dead cancer patients, but that's a lot better than no testing at all).
---
NOTE: unlike benign skin features (birth marks, whatever), malignant lesion change gradually over time (that, per se, is one of the criteria used by dermatologists). so even if you run then exact same CNN on the skin picture the year after that, that CNN will definitely not see the exact same skin picture and might actually detect the cancer this time.
Meanwhile Mark Zuckerberg has been heard, while checking the grocery list sticked on his fridge :
- WhatsApp... okay...
- Instagram... okay...
- reddit... Oh, crap! I forgot to buy it !
Then went and called the "snapchat clonign team" asking them if they could add a few more goals on their list ?
The problem is that converting CO2 back to C + O2 is energy intensive. And we human haven't gotten terribly efficient at it on an industrial scale now.
Luckily for us nature has since long mastered this in a technique called photosynthesis. And has mastered it so long ago, that any impact of such a massive ecological disruption ("invention" of free O2, "invention" of wood a substance that doesn't self degrade on its own) has long being adapted (life almost everywhere has adapted to an oxygen rich environment, bacteria have evolved nowadays [at least on a geological scale of "nowadays"] ways to digest/rot wood as a tasty energy source).
So the best way to "suck" CO2 out of the atmosphere is to plant stuff that will suck it for us. And then NOT to burn said plants (because that would release the carbon back as CO2 - which would bring us back to square #1 and be carbon *neutral* thus defeating the whole purpose of trying to suck back the CO2).
But do stuff with said plants that would keep the carbon sequestered somewhere. Using wood as a building material is the simplest example. Converting the plants in bioplastics is another way that is currently being explored industrially. Though some of those bioplastics are destined to be eventually biocomposted - thus again having only neutral instead of negative impact (e.g.: bioplastic compostable single-use cuttelry has been explored as an alternative to the current plastic singe-use one, even before EU's ban).
{...}and sequestered it in man-made diamonds, we could presumably use them to make theme parks?
Growing diamond out of plant-originated mass could be such an idea. (Diamond being extremely stable chemically and thus not at a high risk of burning back to CO2). Currently we don't have lab processes efficient enough to grow them on a sufficient scale to be able to build whole theme parks. And even more so, to do it on a scale where the man made diamond are going to have a noticeable impact on the reducing the extra CO2 we've put into the atmosphere.
But again, diamonds have properties that are *extremely* desirable to the industry. Industry is much more interested into lab-growing than anything else (Controllable reliable supply chain. Unlike relying on the whims of DeBeers and how they've decided to manipulate the prices by manipulating supply release into the market. And unlike relying on the random properties of whatever happened to be dug out by the child slaves) So who knows, maybe within a century, mass-scale diamond growing could be "a thing"...
Given how the human brain react is presence of either scarcity (as artificially maintained by DeBeers through controlled market release) or abundance (lab can make them on order for cheaper-than-market prices), this actually works marvelously to subconsciously enforce the former part:
This product sucks. It's garbage. You don't want it. It's for losers. Embarrassingly bad. Don't be caught dead with one.
Diamonds have an electric isolation in the gigaohm/mm range and is a way better thermal conductor than copper or aluminium.
But *those* are industrial uses.
Industry doesn't give a fuck about DeBeers' marketing/PR about diamond only being "real" when the got dug out of the ground by some child slave labor, despite having the same carbon atoms in the exact same position as when white lab coats do it.
Industry is happily using "non-real" diamond grown in labs : much cheaper, but the exact same properties (well obviously, it's the exact same structure after all).
Keeping the diamond price artificially high isn't just something that messes with jewelry. If diamonds were cheap (and easier to work with) then we could make a lot of neat stuff./quote>
Lab growing was born out of the necessities to get what the industry craves for without being burdened by the mess of DeBeer trying to carefully control the price of the market through controlled scarcity.
(1) Have manufacturing costs declined enough to flood the market?
They are much more cheaper to produce in a lab than extract from the ground.
But they haven't been flooding the market, because marking/PR has managed to make the target audience think that even if the same carbon atoms(*) are in the same place, somehow it's only "the real deal" if some child slave did dig it from the ground, not if some white lab coat put them together.
You can buy them, for a lower price than "real" diamond. But interest is lower. Some girls insist in having child slavery-produced lumps of carbon on their engagement ring, for whatever reason...
On the other hand industry simply LOVES them : you get the exact same properties as "real" diamond, but you get them much cheaper and you have better control on the impurities and flaws.
---
(*) : As opposed to say diamond simulant - gems that look supperficially alike but have completely different composition (Zirkon, etc.)
(2) Are they deliberately flawing these synthetic diamonds
Yes, technique has evolved to let you control the impurities that get inside the lab grown diamond, because some have interesting properties that are desirable...
to pass them for the natural thing,
...diamond are very heavily tracked (they are micro etched, they come with certificates) in order to enable tracking of the origin (e.g.: to try to avoid "blood" diamonds) Of course conterfeits *are* a thing also in diamond land. But that means somebody is going to find out that more diamond are tracked back to a given mine that said mine is producing.
since natural diamonds are truly scarce?
Actually, even the "real" diamond aren't *that* scares. It's simply DeBeers trying to release them into the market in a controlled fashison to keep them even more scare and keep their price higher. As they still have a sizeable chunk of the diamond market, they can still manage to pull some influence this way.
If the answer to either question is "Yes", then the value of the diamond market will collapse soon.
Currently no, the market doesn't collapse (outside of the industry), because marketing/PR has managed to put a spin that the child slave labor is a necessity to make it "real" even if the same carbon atoms are in the same position as when a white lab coat does it.
The industry doesn't give a fuck, and there, the market for De Beers has evaporated as better techniques have evolved to progressively produce more of what the industry craves for.
Emulation - of course, by definition - would require to run a full blown virtual machine emulating a whole freaking Android smartphone. On top of the Windows 10 Mobile running smartphone.
Not many smartphones have enough resource to play at this games. And again the whole point of the effort is to make Android apps available on Windows 10 Mobile to as many users as possible to make it attractive by tapping into the dominant ecosystem. It would be counter productive to advertise "Windows 10 Mobile can now run your favourite Android App - (*only on select few high range phones)".
That's why in Linux land "Android-in-a-box" efforts are shifting toward "andbox" (lightweight containers, no full blown emulation). Past effort have also been running straight a top of the main Linux kernel (e.g.: Alien-dalvik by Myriad, runs the "I can't believe it's not JAva(tm)" JIT simply as another user-space program in a chroot). ChromeOS too is relying on containerization. But of course that's much easier when you main kernel is having nearly identical API that your target (save for a few android specific things like its peculiar IPC, that you can compile and load as modules anyway). Microsoft are having a much upstream battle. That they are apparently losing (Hey, how does it feel to have a taste of your own medicine ? Ask the wine guys what they are thinking!...)
Also some minor other issues:
Also another thing is that you'd have to install the Android VM image. Which might bring some licensing issues (Google services are licensed vs. the free AOSP misses pieces that some application might require) And make Android app convenient to install (in a VM setting, there should be some android app store available inside the VM - e.g.: aptoid is a popular one). Having android as just another userspace layer makes it easier to install apps "from the outside", e.g.: install from the Microsoft app store (real-world example: see how aptoid apps are integrated into the main Jolla Sailfish store).
i presume we mean curl but this is moot. Anyone who needed curl or tar "from the command prompt" (as if it came anywhere else?) {...}
Yes, curl comes anywhere else. It has also a library (libcurl) and that library is used for web interface by lots of modules. Probably lots of GUI application use curl as their peculiar backend to download stuff.
Except that in WSL's specific case, support for GUI isn't stellar (basically, you need to X-over-network to a Windows native X-Server), so probably nobody is using GUI, and in practice, yes, curl is mostly only used on the command line in Windows-land.
Linux and all GPL software should move to GPL4, which should be identical to GPL2 with an added clause stating that Microsoft and Microsoft employees may not use any of it.
No need, and it would go against the GPL spirit.
The fundamental idea of GPL is that you should be able to do whatever you want with GPLed code, as long as you make sure that anyone you forward the code can still enjoy the same "whatever you want" freedom that your received. (that last part being the key difference with BSD-like persmissive license).
Restricting an imaginary GPLv4 against microsoft would go against the "to whatever you want" part. (And wouldn't be of any use, Microsoft would simply spin off a separate company to handle such GPLv4 code).
Also, by making mandatory to keep the same freedom to the next in line, GPL is pretty robust against EEE : you can't leverage extensions much if you have to publish them due to GPL, and you can't extinguish something that's freely available. There's a reason why the older microsoft guard were shitting their pants and calling GPL "cancer" : RMS had designed something that incidentally happens to be completely EEE-proof.
The modifications of further GPL version were just about patching circumventions that some companies have found around the "keep the same freedom to the next in line" part.
GPLv1 made it mandatory to make source available together with the software. Companies: "here's the code, but you can't legally do anything with it, because it's patent covered and you're violating our IP" GPLv2 made it mandatory to grant access to the patents, without royalties. Companies (e.g. TiVo): "here's the code, but in practice you can't really modify it because uploading your mods requires our secret cryptographic key" GPLv3 made mandatory to provide a way (e.g.: key provided, unlockable bootloader, etc.) to actually be able to use modification in practice.
Currently there's no apparent need for a GPLv4 : no company has invented a way to give you the code, the patents license and the cryptographic keys, but still prevent you from actually modifying the code.
but I fear the ONLY reason ms is doing this is to further advance azure's penetration and to get more linux admins on windows systems.
(and Linux devs to switch away from Mac OS X systems)
Well that, and also the initial idea was to offer enough of the Linux API exposed by the Windows kernel so Windows Mobile could eventually run Android applications so that their OS wouldn't have been the irrelevant joke without any significant app ecosystem.
Except that they didn't manage that even by far. They are light-years away from even running the simplest Android apps, so WSL is what they pivoted to in order to salvage the invested work.
- On Windows, the use of.ini files has completely disappeared. Instead the registry hives being an opaque format that can be only access (in theory) with Windows' API of regedit. This would make it impossible to hand access them manually, say from a boot stick. (Well, in practice, there are 3rd party Linux tools able to access the hive format, so fixing from a boot stick is possible, but you got the idea).
- In gnome with gconfig the configuration is still stored in sets of plain XML files. Only they are now stored in an organized fashion in a specific set of subdirectories, and there's a centralized API and tool set to access them. But they are still human readable (you could still edit them with your favorite editor - emacs/vim/nano/ed) and easily machine readable (e.g. with your favorite Perl module such as XML::Twig).
The windows equivalent would have been if the.ini were kept, but now Microsoft defined a specific path to store them (e.g.: in a specifc subfolder tree within %USER_PROFILE% or whatever, instead of all over the place like in good old Win 3.x days) and mandated a specific API to manipulate them.
The closest thing to Windows' registry in Linux-land would be journald's internal database format, except that it has a very well documented format and journald forwards messages to any of your favorite system logger as soon as that deamon startsup - and it is configured to do so by default on virtually all the GNU/Linux distributions except for the most storage-starved ones in embed systems (e.g.: mercore/Sailfish OS doesn't have a syslog forwarding setup by default because it has to run on your smartphone limited internal flash. But Raspbian forwards to syslog by default).
Eventually the Linux subsystem will be all that's left of Windows. Maybe a legacy support module on the side.
You'd have to call it the Linux supersystem by then, I think. Also "mission accomplished"!
Now you understand why the SystemD is on such a big phagocytosis spree : Swallowing the whole Microsoft Windows into "system-msctl" was Lennart's secret end goal all along !
What the hell are you talking about? Distribution through TV channels? Uh, no. We usually watched MTV to catch a music video after a song became popular enough to justify making a music video.
(That was more thrown in for the jab at MTV, rather than considering it as the number one way to distribute music). Hence also the progressive enumeration: small number of TV < relatively small number of Radios < physical media from stores (with shelf space restriction).
Radio airplay was still the main distribution method, as it had been for decades prior, which people usually wouldn't go buy media until they heard the music. Radio hasn't existed in "small" numbers since it was invented,
Small: Compared to what ? To modern internet/streaming/Etc. ? Yes, definitely. It was tiny. At best you'd get a couple of dozen FM channels that you could catch with your radio in the 80s. At any point of time, there would be a grand total of a couple of dozen of different songs that you could be hearing available simultaneously.
That is a tiny trickle compared to giant Niagara of content that is available today online. There's a crazy insane amount of content that is immediately accessible to you.
There are style that you would probably never be able to hear on the radio that are a single click away from you on internet.
And stores with "limited physical space"? Are you kidding me? We used to have many stores that were dedicated to selling nothing but music, who carried many different "channels" of music in various categories.
All stores *DO* have limited physical space. Yes, it's in the "several hundreds to thousands" range of media, which is impressive by 80s standard. But again that's dwarfed by the amount of content currently available online.
There things that you couldn't find in the shelf back then. With some luck, it could be ordered by the shop. Without luck, you would need to hunt for small very specialized store that don't sell any mainstream media but only rarities and oddities. And you would need to go through several shops until you find what you need - as in physically travel in a nearby town. And/or hunt any garage sells / etc.
Nowadays, it's just a few search terms aways from you, all from the comfort of you internet-enabled laptop. Within seconds. No travel required. At worse you would need to get it peer to peer instead of from a website, because some copyright holder is still refusing to make it available. But you'll get it online faster anyway.
That's the whole point of my post. Nowadays, even if you're interested in completely weird music that only 3 other guys are listening to, there WILL be content available for you now. (A distant SFW-equivalent of rule 34 of the internets:-P ) As there are only 4 guys listening - counting you - this will never register on any "top 10 billboard song". On the other hand, that's yet another additional (even if eccentric) style made available for listening thanks to the modern internet media, so more argument in favor of an actually diversification of available media.
I understand your UID implies otherwise, but this description of the 80s sounds like it was written by a Millennial who only read about it on a poorly written Wiki page.
Not a personal example, but I have some friends who are huge metal heads: Back then, when they were teens, they would littteraly travel to manage to buy the media which interested them. (Some were happy to buy CDs during obscure band's tour. One even opened a specialized music shop to cater to people with similar non mainstream tastes)
Same guys, a couple of decades later. They reminisces about some obscure band that they've seen once on tour (and which disappeared no longer afterward). One flings her phone open, types a few keywords, and blasts the music to the bluetooth
Hypothesis: Can also be a sign of *diversification* of the means of distribution.
In the late 80s, music distribution was though a small number of TV channels (you know, back when the "M" of MTV still stood for music), a (relatively) small number of radio channel, and by buy media (tapes, CDs) from stores (with limited physical space). Whatever you wanted to listen too mostly came from mainstream media. You would need a tiny bit more producers to cover a diverse enough offer to cover all the needs of the public within such a small restricted numbers of channel. In other words the remaining 80% of the 80s producers will be another dozen or couple of dozens of producers, and that's basically all that there was.
Compare to today, even if you're into chiptunes, nerdcore, or even weirder/rarer style that only people on some obscure forum know about, there's going to be at least a dozen of youtube channels with playlist/mixes. There are dozens of producer event for the rarest type of stuff. In other word, the remaining 60% of todays producers at thousands of producers, split among so many style that they'll never register on any "top fo whatever" classifications. The long tail has grown a lot in the mean time, but that something that won't be registered by a simplistic stat like "top billboard song contribution from 10 topmost procuders grew from 20% to 40%" , unless you start paying attention of what's happening to the remain 80% to 60%.
Nicotine has a direct action on the amount of energy you brun vs store. Even if you keep the exact same physical activity levels and diet, once you quit smoking, you'll suddenly start putting on weight.
So it's not necessarily true that the parent poster was eating more and/or exercising less and needs to be reminded.
Also, for some people, quitting smoking works by shifting their craving for quick reward to another target. For the parent poster that was shifting to vaping and the progressively shifting to vaping non-nicotine liquids. But for other people it might by food that's the "replacement quick reward" which does lead to over-eating and could be difficult to manage.
Lastly "eat less" is easy to say, but you'll feel empty-stomached if you only simply eat half the quantity of your usual diet (that's a very bad strategy). A nutritionist would typically help you find ways to have you plate as full as before or even bigger while at the same time being healthier for you, all the while being tasty. (Hint: it doesn't boil down to simply "well, eat green leafs of salad". You'd need diversity)
Or the psychological effect of being given something extra if they are incapable of internalizing the long term savings alone.
That's what I'm thinking too. And even if they are capable of intellectually understanding the long term saving along, monetary reward would still be a way to also stimulate on the instinctive way.
When you look at it(*), cigarettes work by hacking the brain's reward system (tweaking the dopamine levels. A little bit like cocaine, only not so violently). The smoker who have addiction/craving are basically looking for a quick push on their "reward" button. (And that's how you end up developing the addiction. The brain learn a quick way to get a reward).
Giving money will probably be perceived as reward, you're giving an alternative reward to your brain. (The same way some people manage to quit smoking by displacing their craving to another quick reward, like over-eating). After six months, most of the addiction effects are gone. You don't "crave" to get a "quick reward" monetary response at 12months, and thus don't need one, so the 1/3/6 months scheme is good enough. Plus : - By then you'd be saving actual money be removing packs/cartons from your monthly budget. So you'd definitely not be need more money from a budget perspective either. (In addition to the "reward" perspective above). - Quitting smoking saves money to society by removing health risks that would otherwise lead to costly chronic disease. It's 600$ given away to stop smoking, but it's much money saved from health. Thus it makes sense for the healthcare to invest money in such a quiting scheme. (Well, at least for countries where we actually do have some healthcare system. Too bad for you, US !:-P )
---
(*) I'm intentionnally over-simplifying for the demonstration purpose.
Google earn money by selling your eyeballs to advertisers (with the exception of a couple of paid service like the non-free Youtube Music and Youtube Premium)
You do realize that the purpose of the subscription is to get ad free access?
You realize that even TFS mentioned in the last paragraph that the services are available both as a free ads-ridden services (the free Youtube Music, and of course classic Youtube) and as subscription services with a monthly fee (Youtube Music and Youtube Premium, resp) ?
(You realize also that I explicitly mentioned paying service in the part that you blockquoted ?)
Also, as I mentioned at the end of my post, the specific case of user who pay for a subscription might be the first occasion where the algorithms are unleashed with a different win condition (for the first time : "keep eyeballs glued to the screen" might not be the main target=
[type of person] with [interests] and [characteristics] tend to like music by [musician].
Actually not how it has been done for quite some time.
Much more like "people who have played video A, B and C, are more likely to stay playing video D" and some similar kind of chain modelling. So more machine learning than database.
(And then, due to how human psyche works, D is most likely to be "more crap/worse click bait". You begin listening to some random music on the free ads-sponsored Youtube Music and somehow a few hours in you end-up listening to audiobooks of conspiracy theories while your eyes have been burned by 120k "toaster pop-up ads")
So you think it's impossible for a machine learning algorithm to learn that novelty is something you like.
Impossible ? No it isn't.
Will it do it ? Actually not, it wont. The machine learning written by Google tend to optimize mostly for "whatever makes the viewer stay longer so we can throw more ads at them" (well, except for the paid version of the service) And due to how human psyche works, the things which are most likely to end up on the learned list of "best things to show after this video" are going to be mostly more extreme/more stupid/more click baity crap.
The purpose of the AI is *not* to serve you. The purpose of the AI is to serve *Google's* interest, and Google earn money by selling your eyeballs to advertisers (with the exception of a couple of paid service like the non-free Youtube Music and Youtube Premium), which means the AI optimizes for one single thing : - make you stay as much as possible on youtube (thus prolonging your exposure to lucrative ads).
And as has been already demonstrated with old media (studied with TV), what works best on most people is : - showing increasingly more extreme content - trying to appeal emotion - even better if that emotion is fear (increases even more ads success).
By having the AI automatically trying to learn "Which video should I auto-play next, so that the user stays longer", the old media research tells us that the AI will eventually end up favoring those videos, which happens to be more biased fear-mongering and will considers less other video which happen to be the "different ideas" you're longing for. Wraping viewer in a comfort blanket will unknowingly be what happens, because research has shown that this is what works best for what the algorithm has been written to optimise for (increasing viewer retension and increasing revenue stream).
The echo chamber effect is an unintended consequence of how human psyche works and what corporations like Google and FB are optimizing for.
For the first time, paid service (like todays' Youtube Music / Youtube Premium) Google is having a platform where they don't need to actually maintain viewer retention, only need to optimize for people keeping their subscription. (e.g.: if Google releases one cool movie per month as exclusive on youtube, and users end up thinking that this monthly so cool that it is totally worth paying the fee, we'll end up a situation where the platform doesn't need to optimize for minutes spent, only for quality making people keep their subscription. That still doesn't fix people's biased interests, but reduces the "whatever crap makes them stay" current bubble making click bait)
This is basically a "read-after-write" situation, where the CPU tries to speculate before the write is actually known.
Depending on your CPU + OS combo, this will be limited to data you already have full read/write access to anyway. (AMD doesn't speculated pass memory protection, Intel does(*). Linux use a copy-on-write memory allocation scheme, that grantees that all memory page seen by an application are magically pre-filled with zero, meaning that an application can never(*) see some other application's remaining data. But other OSes may differ - I have no idea and don't bother enough to check).
So on AMD arch + Linux OS, all you're ever going to see it is the apps own (non overwritten) data. (Well unless there's a new "kernel stack information leak" that gets discovered - basically the kernel leaving dangerous stuff lingereing on the stack)
So it mostly affect situation like browsers where 3rd party provided code (eg.: internet downloaded javascript) could run in the same process context as some critical bits of information (say a password management plugin).
It should not effect kernel or hypervisor.
---
(*) + (*) I'm almost ready to bet that somebody will find discover an intel-specific exploit to speculatively execute around page faults.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically similar to the Super Gameboy, but with a NES instead of SNES as the host and an (emulated) SNES instead of a GB as the guest.
and with a PiZero (powerpoint presentation) or a Pi3 (SNES game) driving DIRECTLY THE ROM BUS - and that's the freaking awesome part.
He's not writing to a dual-ported RAM that then the PPU reads instead of ROM (like tons of official games from Nintendo do), he's feeding the PPU input straight from the Raspberry Pis. He's basically emulating what the ROM chips would be answering to the PPU, *entirely in software* (no ASICs involved unlike classical Nintendo examples).
In other ways :
- the SNES emulation is just a party trick for fun.
- the "REVERSE EMULATION" part, is that he's emulating what a PPU ROM in a real cartridge would be doing, entirely in software, using Pi GPIO PINs.
It's not the first time even.
Some of the special ASICs used in official NES cartridges by Nintendo did feed programmable RAM instead of ROM to the PPU.
Wikipedia mentions Zelda and Castlevania that use the MMC1 to map RAM so they can animate backgrounds by modifying tiles.
Other posts here mention Mario 3 using ASIC for multidirectional scrolling, etc.
(And that for the NES only. Then the SNES came with its co-processors embed in cartridges, be it SuperFX accelerator, or the Super Gameboy cartridge)
So if you feel that Tom7's trick is cheating, Nintendo has been doing it for much longer.
But the novelties are :
- instead of using a special ASIC like most of the examples from Nintendo (save for the SGB), Tom7 is using a general purpose CPU (like the Z80 in the SGB).
- instead of using some special access to the PPU (like any example from Nintendo) Tom7's attempts try to drive the PPU straight from the Pi's GPIO pins.
- thus the latency problems that classic Nintendo problems avoid (using ASIC and RAM with a reasonable latency), requiring Tom7 to be creative (predict what the PPU will attempt to read, so by the time the PPU is reading it, the Pi has the answer ready on its simulated ROM bus)
That's worth tons of LULZ points.
Your Comcast remote is only outputting codes recognized by your tv, bd, receiver, etc; it does not send a signal to your cable box saying it is turning on another device. Research how universal remotes work.
Speaking how (any) remote work, the end effect turns up to be the opposite :
IR light is IR light, no matter what the logo on the remote say.
IR light is only relatively targeted (it's not an IR *laser*, it's a IR *LED*, and its light bounces nicely off most light-coloured walls. Test it : instead of pointing the IR at the TV, you can also control it by pointing at a white wall behind you.
Basically, the device detects undirected IR blinks.)
So as long as the comcast box isn't in an entirely different room, chances are its IR sensor will see the IR light too.
It's only because its a different *code*, the comcast box knows that it's not destined to it.
But to reach that point, the IR light has already been sensed and the pulse-train has already been decoded into a code, which has correctly been identified as a "target device-specific command".
At that point the box know pretty well you've been pushing the "On" button.
It's an information that could be beamed to the mothership if the firmware is designed to do so.
And then there's an entire different beast lurking there :
most of modern devices are linked through HMDI cables,
HDMI supports CEC commands.
Basically:
- the comcast is already aware if the TV is off - as the TV is already saying so over CEC.
- lots of devices are able to forward commands over CEC (e.g.: the TV should be able to ask the Comcast box to turn on if you select its HDMI input) so in fact, no matter how IR universal remotes work, the devices can already send commands to each other on the HDMI network.
That would only make sense if something ever visibly changed on Facebook.
Facebook (the company) has visibly copied several features from the Snapchat (app) into their own collection of apps :
- Instastories (ephemeral "top posts" by users) is basically on of the main features lifted from Snapchat.
- Status posts in WhatsApp is yet another attempt at the same features in yet another Facebook-owned app.
- Instagram also cloned nearly identically lots of post-processing that Snapchat. Instead of sticking to the "color filiter to copy the crappy quality of old photo gears used by hipsters" that initially started Instagram, there are now emoji stickers, effects, etc.
Basically Mark Zuckerberg knows that nothing is eternal. He has seen how MySpace eventually went out of fashion and how the generation after that went to Facebook. He knows that Facebook won't be eternal neither, and that eventually people will move to something else, too : Most of its userbase has now become moms and dads, and their kids aren't hanging in the some online places.
Mark has thus been fervently buying all the things showing chances of being "the next big thing". As WhatsApp and Intagram started to become popular among milenials, they where acquired by Facebook.
It turned to be a wise strategy : they are now major social networks.
But then came Snapchat - the thing that is currently popular with kids.
Except that this time round, despite all his offers and attempts, the Zuck couldn't buy them.
So, cloning the most popular feature from Snapchat into the apps that Facebook owns has been the alternative strategy to retain user base as much as possible. /. geek enough to know that nothing is really ever gone online) and the crazy amount of real-time video manipulation filters, stickers, etc.
Snapchat became popular with kids for two reasons : the perceived ephemeral messages (there is no "history", once it's gone, it's supposed to be definitely gone. And not everyone is a
Facebook cloned as much of it as possible.
The thing with diseases that get regularly checked, is that it doesn't make *that much* importance if they are missed on the first check.
5% is a large percentage, but some of these could be picked up by the dermatologist supervising the exam (if there's one on the premice)
and some of those 5% will eventually be picked up during next year's check, or the year after that.
(so 12 or 24 months later, which is still within the 28 months median time before metastasis, at which point the disease turn fatal.
Meaning that we're considering 0.05 ^ 3 [people missed after 3 tests in a row spread over 24 months] * 0.5 [portion of them who potentially developped metastasis] = 6.25 per million.
That is still a lot of potentially future dead cancer patients, but that's a lot better than no testing at all).
---
NOTE:
unlike benign skin features (birth marks, whatever),
malignant lesion change gradually over time (that, per se, is one of the criteria used by dermatologists).
so even if you run then exact same CNN on the skin picture the year after that, that CNN will definitely not see the exact same skin picture and might actually detect the cancer this time.
Meanwhile Mark Zuckerberg has been heard, while checking the grocery list sticked on his fridge :
- WhatsApp... okay...
- Instagram... okay...
- reddit... Oh, crap! I forgot to buy it !
Then went and called the "snapchat clonign team" asking them if they could add a few more goals on their list ?
So if we sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere {...}
NOTE: Diamond is a lattice of *pure* carbon (C)
The problem is that converting CO2 back to C + O2 is energy intensive.
And we human haven't gotten terribly efficient at it on an industrial scale now.
Luckily for us nature has since long mastered this in a technique called photosynthesis.
And has mastered it so long ago, that any impact of such a massive ecological disruption ("invention" of free O2, "invention" of wood a substance that doesn't self degrade on its own) has long being adapted (life almost everywhere has adapted to an oxygen rich environment, bacteria have evolved nowadays [at least on a geological scale of "nowadays"] ways to digest/rot wood as a tasty energy source).
So the best way to "suck" CO2 out of the atmosphere is to plant stuff that will suck it for us.
And then NOT to burn said plants (because that would release the carbon back as CO2 - which would bring us back to square #1 and be carbon *neutral* thus defeating the whole purpose of trying to suck back the CO2).
But do stuff with said plants that would keep the carbon sequestered somewhere.
Using wood as a building material is the simplest example.
Converting the plants in bioplastics is another way that is currently being explored industrially.
Though some of those bioplastics are destined to be eventually biocomposted - thus again having only neutral instead of negative impact (e.g.: bioplastic compostable single-use cuttelry has been explored as an alternative to the current plastic singe-use one, even before EU's ban).
{...}and sequestered it in man-made diamonds, we could presumably use them to make theme parks?
Growing diamond out of plant-originated mass could be such an idea. (Diamond being extremely stable chemically and thus not at a high risk of burning back to CO2).
Currently we don't have lab processes efficient enough to grow them on a sufficient scale to be able to build whole theme parks. And even more so, to do it on a scale where the man made diamond are going to have a noticeable impact on the reducing the extra CO2 we've put into the atmosphere.
But again, diamonds have properties that are *extremely* desirable to the industry. Industry is much more interested into lab-growing than anything else (Controllable reliable supply chain.
Unlike relying on the whims of DeBeers and how they've decided to manipulate the prices by manipulating supply release into the market.
And unlike relying on the random properties of whatever happened to be dug out by the child slaves)
So who knows, maybe within a century, mass-scale diamond growing could be "a thing"...
(But then you'll have yet)
Come get 'em, half off everybody! We got lots!
Given how the human brain react is presence of either scarcity (as artificially maintained by DeBeers through controlled market release) or abundance (lab can make them on order for cheaper-than-market prices), this actually works marvelously to subconsciously enforce the former part :
This product sucks. It's garbage. You don't want it. It's for losers. Embarrassingly bad. Don't be caught dead with one.
Diamonds have an electric isolation in the gigaohm/mm range and is a way better thermal conductor than copper or aluminium.
But *those* are industrial uses.
Industry doesn't give a fuck about DeBeers' marketing/PR about diamond only being "real" when the got dug out of the ground by some child slave labor, despite having the same carbon atoms in the exact same position as when white lab coats do it.
Industry is happily using "non-real" diamond grown in labs : much cheaper, but the exact same properties (well obviously, it's the exact same structure after all).
Keeping the diamond price artificially high isn't just something that messes with jewelry.
If diamonds were cheap (and easier to work with) then we could make a lot of neat stuff./quote>
Lab growing was born out of the necessities to get what the industry craves for without being burdened by the mess of DeBeer trying to carefully control the price of the market through controlled scarcity.
(1) Have manufacturing costs declined enough to flood the market?
They are much more cheaper to produce in a lab than extract from the ground.
But they haven't been flooding the market, because marking/PR has managed to make the target audience think that even if the same carbon atoms(*) are in the same place, somehow it's only "the real deal" if some child slave did dig it from the ground, not if some white lab coat put them together.
You can buy them, for a lower price than "real" diamond. But interest is lower. Some girls insist in having child slavery-produced lumps of carbon on their engagement ring, for whatever reason...
On the other hand industry simply LOVES them : you get the exact same properties as "real" diamond, but you get them much cheaper and you have better control on the impurities and flaws.
---
(*) : As opposed to say diamond simulant - gems that look supperficially alike but have completely different composition (Zirkon, etc.)
(2) Are they deliberately flawing these synthetic diamonds
Yes, technique has evolved to let you control the impurities that get inside the lab grown diamond, because some have interesting properties that are desirable...
to pass them for the natural thing,
...diamond are very heavily tracked (they are micro etched, they come with certificates) in order to enable tracking of the origin (e.g.: to try to avoid "blood" diamonds)
Of course conterfeits *are* a thing also in diamond land.
But that means somebody is going to find out that more diamond are tracked back to a given mine that said mine is producing.
since natural diamonds are truly scarce?
Actually, even the "real" diamond aren't *that* scares. It's simply DeBeers trying to release them into the market in a controlled fashison to keep them even more scare and keep their price higher.
As they still have a sizeable chunk of the diamond market, they can still manage to pull some influence this way.
If the answer to either question is "Yes", then the value of the diamond market will collapse soon.
Currently no, the market doesn't collapse (outside of the industry), because marketing/PR has managed to put a spin that the child slave labor is a necessity to make it "real" even if the same carbon atoms are in the same position as when a white lab coat does it.
The industry doesn't give a fuck, and there, the market for De Beers has evaporated as better techniques have evolved to progressively produce more of what the industry craves for.
The main issue :
Emulation - of course, by definition - would require to run a full blown virtual machine emulating a whole freaking Android smartphone.
On top of the Windows 10 Mobile running smartphone.
Not many smartphones have enough resource to play at this games. And again the whole point of the effort is to make Android apps available on Windows 10 Mobile to as many users as possible to make it attractive by tapping into the dominant ecosystem. It would be counter productive to advertise "Windows 10 Mobile can now run your favourite Android App - (*only on select few high range phones)".
That's why in Linux land "Android-in-a-box" efforts are shifting toward "andbox" (lightweight containers, no full blown emulation).
Past effort have also been running straight a top of the main Linux kernel (e.g.: Alien-dalvik by Myriad, runs the "I can't believe it's not JAva(tm)" JIT simply as another user-space program in a chroot).
ChromeOS too is relying on containerization.
But of course that's much easier when you main kernel is having nearly identical API that your target (save for a few android specific things like its peculiar IPC, that you can compile and load as modules anyway). Microsoft are having a much upstream battle. That they are apparently losing (Hey, how does it feel to have a taste of your own medicine ? Ask the wine guys what they are thinking!...)
Also some minor other issues:
Also another thing is that you'd have to install the Android VM image.
Which might bring some licensing issues (Google services are licensed vs. the free AOSP misses pieces that some application might require)
And make Android app convenient to install (in a VM setting, there should be some android app store available inside the VM - e.g.: aptoid is a popular one).
Having android as just another userspace layer makes it easier to install apps "from the outside", e.g.: install from the Microsoft app store (real-world example: see how aptoid apps are integrated into the main Jolla Sailfish store).
i presume we mean curl but this is moot. Anyone who needed curl or tar "from the command prompt" (as if it came anywhere else?) {...}
Yes, curl comes anywhere else.
It has also a library (libcurl) and that library is used for web interface by lots of modules.
Probably lots of GUI application use curl as their peculiar backend to download stuff.
Except that in WSL's specific case, support for GUI isn't stellar (basically, you need to X-over-network to a Windows native X-Server), so probably nobody is using GUI, and in practice, yes, curl is mostly only used on the command line in Windows-land.
Linux and all GPL software should move to GPL4, which should be identical to GPL2 with an added clause stating that Microsoft and Microsoft employees may not use any of it.
No need, and it would go against the GPL spirit.
The fundamental idea of GPL is that you should be able to do whatever you want with GPLed code, as long as you make sure that anyone you forward the code can still enjoy the same "whatever you want" freedom that your received. (that last part being the key difference with BSD-like persmissive license).
Restricting an imaginary GPLv4 against microsoft would go against the "to whatever you want" part. (And wouldn't be of any use, Microsoft would simply spin off a separate company to handle such GPLv4 code).
Also, by making mandatory to keep the same freedom to the next in line, GPL is pretty robust against EEE : you can't leverage extensions much if you have to publish them due to GPL, and you can't extinguish something that's freely available.
There's a reason why the older microsoft guard were shitting their pants and calling GPL "cancer" : RMS had designed something that incidentally happens to be completely EEE-proof.
The modifications of further GPL version were just about patching circumventions that some companies have found around the "keep the same freedom to the next in line" part.
GPLv1 made it mandatory to make source available together with the software.
Companies: "here's the code, but you can't legally do anything with it, because it's patent covered and you're violating our IP"
GPLv2 made it mandatory to grant access to the patents, without royalties.
Companies (e.g. TiVo): "here's the code, but in practice you can't really modify it because uploading your mods requires our secret cryptographic key"
GPLv3 made mandatory to provide a way (e.g.: key provided, unlockable bootloader, etc.) to actually be able to use modification in practice.
Currently there's no apparent need for a GPLv4 : no company has invented a way to give you the code, the patents license and the cryptographic keys, but still prevent you from actually modifying the code.
but I fear the ONLY reason ms is doing this is to further advance azure's penetration and to get more linux admins on windows systems.
(and Linux devs to switch away from Mac OS X systems)
Well that, and also the initial idea was to offer enough of the Linux API exposed by the Windows kernel so Windows Mobile could eventually run Android applications so that their OS wouldn't have been the irrelevant joke without any significant app ecosystem.
Except that they didn't manage that even by far. They are light-years away from even running the simplest Android apps, so WSL is what they pivoted to in order to salvage the invested work.
The differences are :
- On Windows, the use of .ini files has completely disappeared. Instead the registry hives being an opaque format that can be only access (in theory) with Windows' API of regedit. This would make it impossible to hand access them manually, say from a boot stick. (Well, in practice, there are 3rd party Linux tools able to access the hive format, so fixing from a boot stick is possible, but you got the idea).
- In gnome with gconfig the configuration is still stored in sets of plain XML files. Only they are now stored in an organized fashion in a specific set of subdirectories, and there's a centralized API and tool set to access them. But they are still human readable (you could still edit them with your favorite editor - emacs/vim/nano/ed) and easily machine readable (e.g. with your favorite Perl module such as XML::Twig).
The windows equivalent would have been if the .ini were kept, but now Microsoft defined a specific path to store them (e.g.: in a specifc subfolder tree within %USER_PROFILE% or whatever, instead of all over the place like in good old Win 3.x days) and mandated a specific API to manipulate them.
The closest thing to Windows' registry in Linux-land would be journald's internal database format, except that it has a very well documented format and journald forwards messages to any of your favorite system logger as soon as that deamon startsup - and it is configured to do so by default on virtually all the GNU/Linux distributions except for the most storage-starved ones in embed systems (e.g.: mercore/Sailfish OS doesn't have a syslog forwarding setup by default because it has to run on your smartphone limited internal flash. But Raspbian forwards to syslog by default).
Eventually the Linux subsystem will be all that's left of Windows. Maybe a legacy support module on the side.
You'd have to call it the Linux supersystem by then, I think. Also "mission accomplished"!
Now you understand why the SystemD is on such a big phagocytosis spree :
Swallowing the whole Microsoft Windows into "system-msctl" was Lennart's secret end goal all along !
What the hell are you talking about? Distribution through TV channels? Uh, no. We usually watched MTV to catch a music video after a song became popular enough to justify making a music video.
(That was more thrown in for the jab at MTV, rather than considering it as the number one way to distribute music). :
Hence also the progressive enumeration
small number of TV < relatively small number of Radios < physical media from stores (with shelf space restriction).
Radio airplay was still the main distribution method, as it had been for decades prior, which people usually wouldn't go buy media until they heard the music. Radio hasn't existed in "small" numbers since it was invented,
Small: Compared to what ? To modern internet/streaming/Etc. ?
Yes, definitely. It was tiny.
At best you'd get a couple of dozen FM channels that you could catch with your radio in the 80s. At any point of time, there would be a grand total of a couple of dozen of different songs that you could be hearing available simultaneously.
That is a tiny trickle compared to giant Niagara of content that is available today online.
There's a crazy insane amount of content that is immediately accessible to you.
There are style that you would probably never be able to hear on the radio that are a single click away from you on internet.
And stores with "limited physical space"? Are you kidding me? We used to have many stores that were dedicated to selling nothing but music, who carried many different "channels" of music in various categories.
All stores *DO* have limited physical space.
Yes, it's in the "several hundreds to thousands" range of media, which is impressive by 80s standard.
But again that's dwarfed by the amount of content currently available online.
There things that you couldn't find in the shelf back then.
With some luck, it could be ordered by the shop. Without luck, you would need to hunt for small very specialized store that don't sell any mainstream media but only rarities and oddities. And you would need to go through several shops until you find what you need - as in physically travel in a nearby town. And/or hunt any garage sells / etc.
Nowadays, it's just a few search terms aways from you, all from the comfort of you internet-enabled laptop. Within seconds. No travel required.
At worse you would need to get it peer to peer instead of from a website, because some copyright holder is still refusing to make it available. But you'll get it online faster anyway.
That's the whole point of my post. :-P )
Nowadays, even if you're interested in completely weird music that only 3 other guys are listening to, there WILL be content available for you now. (A distant SFW-equivalent of rule 34 of the internets
As there are only 4 guys listening - counting you - this will never register on any "top 10 billboard song".
On the other hand, that's yet another additional (even if eccentric) style made available for listening thanks to the modern internet media, so more argument in favor of an actually diversification of available media.
I understand your UID implies otherwise, but this description of the 80s sounds like it was written by a Millennial who only read about it on a poorly written Wiki page.
Not a personal example, but I have some friends who are huge metal heads:
Back then, when they were teens, they would littteraly travel to manage to buy the media which interested them. (Some were happy to buy CDs during obscure band's tour. One even opened a specialized music shop to cater to people with similar non mainstream tastes)
Same guys, a couple of decades later. They reminisces about some obscure band that they've seen once on tour (and which disappeared no longer afterward). One flings her phone open, types a few keywords, and blasts the music to the bluetooth
Hypothesis: Can also be a sign of *diversification* of the means of distribution.
In the late 80s, music distribution was though a small number of TV channels (you know, back when the "M" of MTV still stood for music), a (relatively) small number of radio channel, and by buy media (tapes, CDs) from stores (with limited physical space).
Whatever you wanted to listen too mostly came from mainstream media.
You would need a tiny bit more producers to cover a diverse enough offer to cover all the needs of the public within such a small restricted numbers of channel.
In other words the remaining 80% of the 80s producers will be another dozen or couple of dozens of producers, and that's basically all that there was.
Compare to today, even if you're into chiptunes, nerdcore, or even weirder/rarer style that only people on some obscure forum know about, there's going to be at least a dozen of youtube channels with playlist/mixes.
There are dozens of producer event for the rarest type of stuff.
In other word, the remaining 60% of todays producers at thousands of producers, split among so many style that they'll never register on any "top fo whatever" classifications.
The long tail has grown a lot in the mean time, but that something that won't be registered by a simplistic stat like "top billboard song contribution from 10 topmost procuders grew from 20% to 40%" , unless you start paying attention of what's happening to the remain 80% to 60%.
Nicotine has a direct action on the amount of energy you brun vs store.
Even if you keep the exact same physical activity levels and diet, once you quit smoking, you'll suddenly start putting on weight.
So it's not necessarily true that the parent poster was eating more and/or exercising less and needs to be reminded.
Also, for some people, quitting smoking works by shifting their craving for quick reward to another target. For the parent poster that was shifting to vaping and the progressively shifting to vaping non-nicotine liquids. But for other people it might by food that's the "replacement quick reward" which does lead to over-eating and could be difficult to manage.
Lastly "eat less" is easy to say, but you'll feel empty-stomached if you only simply eat half the quantity of your usual diet (that's a very bad strategy).
A nutritionist would typically help you find ways to have you plate as full as before or even bigger while at the same time being healthier for you, all the while being tasty.
(Hint: it doesn't boil down to simply "well, eat green leafs of salad". You'd need diversity)
Or the psychological effect of being given something extra if they are incapable of internalizing the long term savings alone.
That's what I'm thinking too.
And even if they are capable of intellectually understanding the long term saving along, monetary reward would still be a way to also stimulate on the instinctive way.
When you look at it(*), cigarettes work by hacking the brain's reward system (tweaking the dopamine levels. A little bit like cocaine, only not so violently).
The smoker who have addiction/craving are basically looking for a quick push on their "reward" button.
(And that's how you end up developing the addiction. The brain learn a quick way to get a reward).
Giving money will probably be perceived as reward, you're giving an alternative reward to your brain. :-P )
(The same way some people manage to quit smoking by displacing their craving to another quick reward, like over-eating).
After six months, most of the addiction effects are gone. You don't "crave" to get a "quick reward" monetary response at 12months, and thus don't need one, so the 1/3/6 months scheme is good enough. Plus :
- By then you'd be saving actual money be removing packs/cartons from your monthly budget. So you'd definitely not be need more money from a budget perspective either. (In addition to the "reward" perspective above).
- Quitting smoking saves money to society by removing health risks that would otherwise lead to costly chronic disease. It's 600$ given away to stop smoking, but it's much money saved from health. Thus it makes sense for the healthcare to invest money in such a quiting scheme. (Well, at least for countries where we actually do have some healthcare system. Too bad for you, US !
---
(*) I'm intentionnally over-simplifying for the demonstration purpose.
You do realize that the purpose of the subscription is to get ad free access?
You realize that even TFS mentioned in the last paragraph that the services are available both as a free ads-ridden services (the free Youtube Music, and of course classic Youtube) and as subscription services with a monthly fee (Youtube Music and Youtube Premium, resp) ?
(You realize also that I explicitly mentioned paying service in the part that you blockquoted ?)
Also, as I mentioned at the end of my post, the specific case of user who pay for a subscription might be the first occasion where the algorithms are unleashed with a different win condition (for the first time : "keep eyeballs glued to the screen" might not be the main target=
[type of person] with [interests] and [characteristics] tend to like music by [musician].
Actually not how it has been done for quite some time.
Much more like "people who have played video A, B and C, are more likely to stay playing video D" and some similar kind of chain modelling. So more machine learning than database.
(And then, due to how human psyche works, D is most likely to be "more crap/worse click bait".
You begin listening to some random music on the free ads-sponsored Youtube Music and somehow a few hours in you end-up listening to audiobooks of conspiracy theories while your eyes have been burned by 120k "toaster pop-up ads")
So you think it's impossible for a machine learning algorithm to learn that novelty is something you like.
Impossible ? No it isn't.
Will it do it ? Actually not, it wont.
The machine learning written by Google tend to optimize mostly for "whatever makes the viewer stay longer so we can throw more ads at them" (well, except for the paid version of the service)
And due to how human psyche works, the things which are most likely to end up on the learned list of "best things to show after this video" are going to be mostly more extreme/more stupid/more click baity crap.
The purpose of the AI is *not* to serve you.
The purpose of the AI is to serve *Google's* interest, and Google earn money by selling your eyeballs to advertisers (with the exception of a couple of paid service like the non-free Youtube Music and Youtube Premium), which means the AI optimizes for one single thing :
- make you stay as much as possible on youtube (thus prolonging your exposure to lucrative ads).
And as has been already demonstrated with old media (studied with TV), what works best on most people is :
- showing increasingly more extreme content
- trying to appeal emotion
- even better if that emotion is fear (increases even more ads success).
By having the AI automatically trying to learn "Which video should I auto-play next, so that the user stays longer", the old media research tells us that the AI will eventually end up favoring those videos, which happens to be more biased fear-mongering and will considers less other video which happen to be the "different ideas" you're longing for.
Wraping viewer in a comfort blanket will unknowingly be what happens, because research has shown that this is what works best for what the algorithm has been written to optimise for (increasing viewer retension and increasing revenue stream).
The echo chamber effect is an unintended consequence of how human psyche works and what corporations like Google and FB are optimizing for.
For the first time, paid service (like todays' Youtube Music / Youtube Premium) Google is having a platform where they don't need to actually maintain viewer retention, only need to optimize for people keeping their subscription.
(e.g.: if Google releases one cool movie per month as exclusive on youtube, and users end up thinking that this monthly so cool that it is totally worth paying the fee, we'll end up a situation where the platform doesn't need to optimize for minutes spent, only for quality making people keep their subscription.
That still doesn't fix people's biased interests, but reduces the "whatever crap makes them stay" current bubble making click bait)
This time it depends on both the CPU and the OS.
This is basically a "read-after-write" situation, where the CPU tries to speculate before the write is actually known.
Depending on your CPU + OS combo, this will be limited to data you already have full read/write access to anyway.
(AMD doesn't speculated pass memory protection, Intel does(*).
Linux use a copy-on-write memory allocation scheme, that grantees that all memory page seen by an application are magically pre-filled with zero, meaning that an application can never(*) see some other application's remaining data. But other OSes may differ - I have no idea and don't bother enough to check).
So on AMD arch + Linux OS, all you're ever going to see it is the apps own (non overwritten) data.
(Well unless there's a new "kernel stack information leak" that gets discovered - basically the kernel leaving dangerous stuff lingereing on the stack)
So it mostly affect situation like browsers where 3rd party provided code (eg.: internet downloaded javascript) could run in the same process context as some critical bits of information (say a password management plugin).
It should not effect kernel or hypervisor.
---
(*) + (*) I'm almost ready to bet that somebody will find discover an intel-specific exploit to speculatively execute around page faults.