Scientists do not only have a duty to perform good research (many do not, sadly), but also to inform the general public about the meaning of their results. This study is perfectly valid (if scientifically worthless) and nicely demonstrates that an experiment or study may not imply the things a non-expert may think it does. As such, it serves as a nice warning. Another one about as ingenious is this one here: https://blogs.scientificameric...
I hope that this study wins an IgNoble as well. Note that the IgNoble in no way implies that the research so honored is bad. Dunning and Kruger won one for what is perhaps the most important discovery in Psychology of the last century. It just implies that something is really, really messed up. In this case it is the way _other_ studies using the same, standard methodology are interpreted and generalized by the press and other non-experts.
Hahahahaha, no. There are formally verified protocols than then was found to be vulnerable because somebody successfully attacked it. The thing with formal verification is that you _always_ need to be make assumptions and they can have errors. Also, you cannot (due to effort) formally verify the compiler and the CPU and the rest of the system (e.g. DMA unit), so formal verification does very much not give you that "beyond a reasonable doubt" either.
Why would I need that? Expecting 100% security is a noob mistake. This is risk-management and that is not a beginner's game. The only thing I need is that I am reasonably sure they are well-maintained, current and actually fs drivers I regularly use.
On the other hand, you do expect it to start executing file system driver code.
Well, I expect it to have exactly the filesystem drivers I compiled in. But you are correct that many pre-packaged OSes include a lot of filesystem and other drivers that are not strictly needed and, to make it worse, will load them automatically if they detect the respective filesystem or device. Linux was a while vulnerable via some very old and obscure driver for some MAC OS fs, for example. That is why in any system hardening you remove all drivers that are not strictly needed, not only for file systems. And, realistically, an OS image targeted at non-expert should only come pre-hardened. Of course that causes a lot of user complaints, so the users get insecure configurations instead. Not good.
It is a real issue in the sense that the people creating configurations that do this demented thing are real. If we only had sane people doing default configurations, most security problems would go away. But there is a lot of people that do not get it and are unaware of that and hence mess it up. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.
Just the usual dishonesty you can expect from Intel. In addition, you can expect their CPUs to be overpriced, backdoored and full of critical security problems. You know, the usual things corporations with a dominant market position do because they have long since stopped caring about their customers.
Here is a hint: The productivity in the given setting _is_ the output because the input is fixed. It is the 168h a single worker has in a week. What is not fixed is the ratio of time spent working to time spent not working. But that is not the "input" in the base formula for productivity here. It is an utilization factor. As we are only asking after the peak dependent on the utilization factor, we do not care about constants. (Warning! Advanced idea!) I am not really surprised you cannot do such an elementary calculation. I have seen this countless times in freshmen. Although those that are still there a year later usually do not have your ignorant arrogance.
What I find utterly hilarious though is that you do recognize the input in my argument is fixed but completely fail to see that this is the right model for the given problem. You probably run equipment with a limited operation time and cool-down requirement nonstop and wonder why it fails as well or think that you can just run one unit twice as long instead of having to get two from a certain utilization onward.
They prepare children early for the upcoming and partially already established surveillance society where the only privacy you have is in your head. Well, until they crack that, they are already hard at work on it. The earlier the kids learn that privacy, freedom, individuality and such things are a historic aberration that does not and cannot last and that they need to hide who they are at all times, the better their chances in life.
Yes, this new wave of upcoming authoritarianism and fascism is utterly horrible but so many completely stupid people are cheering it onward that it very likely cannot be stopped. Just as before when such catastrophes happened.
Aaaand found the clueless nit-picker. As anybody with two brain-cells can see, this is obviously per real-time interval large enough to give stable numbers, i.e. at least a week. It most certainly is _not_ per hour of labor. Even suggesting this means you have not understood anything at all. My very point is that the productivity per hour is dependent on hours worked overall per day/week and that the total sum per week decreases from a certain point of hour worked onward that is around 30 h/week.
If you have a STEM degree, I suggest you hand it back as you clearly have not enough insight into how to do measurements in the real world to deserve that degree.
The only one saying anything about "no benefits" here is you. I am merely pointing out that the metric used is fundamentally broken and that you should stop defending it. Also, in the civilized world, you get benefits regardless of how long you work and things like health insurance are _not_ tied to your job (for obvious reasons).
As I said, the stupidity is staggering. "Work hours" are generally not an useful productivity metric. They are only an useful metric to determine how many hours are missing from your life. The whole approach is utterly broken for most (not all) situations and that needs to change.
You think I do not speak to "the bosses" as well or that these limits do not apply to them? Whatever gave you that idea? Or do you not include "the bosses" in the "mental worker" category?
Also, I am not saying the "non-bosses" have the freedom to do something else. I do however notice that quite a few of the "non-bosses" defend working long hours and claim that this makes them more productive overall. And that is the thing I am talking about there: Lack of understanding. Understanding is a required component in addressing this problem. It seems to me the main reason so many people work so many hours in the US is that almost nobody understands that this is the wrong approach.
Of course, the stupidity is with those that cause the long working hours, whether it is "the bosses" or whether the workers are doing it to themselves. And, you know, from statements made, for example here, a lot of workers are actually doing it to themselves.
True. If you work around 40h formally, then an efficient mental worker will waste around 2h/day to improve efficiency. If you work, say,60h, then this does not work anymore and your productivity will sink significantly under that of somebody working 30h (or being at work 40h while working 30h).
Actually, not like this. As 30h/week workers are significantly more productive overall than those working more, this makes the problem worse. If we go to, say 20h/week, work, then the positive effect on the job-market will be there.
I never got that. I mean it has been known for a long, long time from studies by Ford and others that mental workers have peak efficiency at 6h/day for 5 days/week and that working more _decreases_ total (!) productivity. I guess there are so many americans that are virtue signalling by working (or claiming to work) much more that the sheer stupidity of doing so does not get through anymore.
So let me state this again: If you work 40h or more a week as a mental worker, then you are unproductive and self-destructive. If you work around 30h a week as mental worker, you are pretty much at peak overall (!) efficiently. And no, if you claim otherwise, then you are just uninformed. These facts are not up for dispute and they have not been up for dispute for a long time. The current experiments are just re-discovering known information.
Permission of the target that is. For one thing, all reasonable standards of evidence go out the window. That invites planting evidence. And since the feds are in no way morally superior to other people (if anything, they are significantly less moral), it will happen and in many cases the victim will not be able to mount an effective defense. The second problem is that people that need to fear being hacked in this way (and everybody not perfectly boring needs to) will self-censor. That is the death of civil society.
Of course, authoritarians of all colors, and especially the religious fuckups, will welcome that. Individual thoughts? We cannot have that! These people may find out that all authoritarian legends are just smoke and mirrors! And where do you find most authoritarians? Right, in government service. Because that is what they crave: Universal order, enforced by as much violence as needed. No deviations. No disruptions. No progress. No individuality.
Low-power (energy and performance wise) is pretty much ARM these days, not x86. As far as I understand, this is about dropping 32 bit x86, not other architectures. For really old hardware, you can still update problematic stuff from sources and stay with the last 32 bit release otherwise.
But do not worry, they have never done that and it is actually not their job. Universities give you a base-understanding of a specific field (well, unless you study gender-"studies" or something in that direction), but they do not and should not provide job training. If you had a really good university program, you will probably end up using something like 30% of the content during your career. On the plus-side, that will be often stuff you just cannot pick up on the side and cannot really learn on the job. And it will generally be the foundation for you to learn more and decide in which direction you actually want to take your professional life.
There are some roadblocks upcoming though. People that liked their university studies and were pretty good at a significant part of the subjects and it was in the STEM field do not need to worry: There will be an a constant and possibly increasing need for your services. However the large majority that was more average, did not really enjoy the subjects, struggled with many or most or was not in STEM will probably be hit by an accelerated wave of jobs vanishing. I don't wish that on anybody, I think anybody that tries should be able to find a way to live decently, but businesses are hell-bent on eliminating people for more short-term revenue improvements and society has not yet found a way to deal with that.
Very much so. They would not want to lose their importance and job, would they? As soon as you have an inquisition, it will start to torture and kill people. Expecting anything else is deeply naive.
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists do not only have a duty to perform good research (many do not, sadly), but also to inform the general public about the meaning of their results. This study is perfectly valid (if scientifically worthless) and nicely demonstrates that an experiment or study may not imply the things a non-expert may think it does. As such, it serves as a nice warning. Another one about as ingenious is this one here: https://blogs.scientificameric...
I hope that this study wins an IgNoble as well. Note that the IgNoble in no way implies that the research so honored is bad. Dunning and Kruger won one for what is perhaps the most important discovery in Psychology of the last century. It just implies that something is really, really messed up. In this case it is the way _other_ studies using the same, standard methodology are interpreted and generalized by the press and other non-experts.
Hahahahaha, no. There are formally verified protocols than then was found to be vulnerable because somebody successfully attacked it. The thing with formal verification is that you _always_ need to be make assumptions and they can have errors. Also, you cannot (due to effort) formally verify the compiler and the CPU and the rest of the system (e.g. DMA unit), so formal verification does very much not give you that "beyond a reasonable doubt" either.
Why would I need that? Expecting 100% security is a noob mistake. This is risk-management and that is not a beginner's game.
The only thing I need is that I am reasonably sure they are well-maintained, current and actually fs drivers I regularly use.
On the other hand, you do expect it to start executing file system driver code.
Well, I expect it to have exactly the filesystem drivers I compiled in. But you are correct that many pre-packaged OSes include a lot of filesystem and other drivers that are not strictly needed and, to make it worse, will load them automatically if they detect the respective filesystem or device. Linux was a while vulnerable via some very old and obscure driver for some MAC OS fs, for example. That is why in any system hardening you remove all drivers that are not strictly needed, not only for file systems. And, realistically, an OS image targeted at non-expert should only come pre-hardened. Of course that causes a lot of user complaints, so the users get insecure configurations instead. Not good.
It is a real issue in the sense that the people creating configurations that do this demented thing are real. If we only had sane people doing default configurations, most security problems would go away. But there is a lot of people that do not get it and are unaware of that and hence mess it up. Dunning-Kruger effect at work.
Just the usual dishonesty you can expect from Intel. In addition, you can expect their CPUs to be overpriced, backdoored and full of critical security problems. You know, the usual things corporations with a dominant market position do because they have long since stopped caring about their customers.
Here is a hint: The productivity in the given setting _is_ the output because the input is fixed. It is the 168h a single worker has in a week. What is not fixed is the ratio of time spent working to time spent not working. But that is not the "input" in the base formula for productivity here. It is an utilization factor. As we are only asking after the peak dependent on the utilization factor, we do not care about constants. (Warning! Advanced idea!) I am not really surprised you cannot do such an elementary calculation. I have seen this countless times in freshmen. Although those that are still there a year later usually do not have your ignorant arrogance.
What I find utterly hilarious though is that you do recognize the input in my argument is fixed but completely fail to see that this is the right model for the given problem. You probably run equipment with a limited operation time and cool-down requirement nonstop and wonder why it fails as well or think that you can just run one unit twice as long instead of having to get two from a certain utilization onward.
They prepare children early for the upcoming and partially already established surveillance society where the only privacy you have is in your head. Well, until they crack that, they are already hard at work on it. The earlier the kids learn that privacy, freedom, individuality and such things are a historic aberration that does not and cannot last and that they need to hide who they are at all times, the better their chances in life.
Yes, this new wave of upcoming authoritarianism and fascism is utterly horrible but so many completely stupid people are cheering it onward that it very likely cannot be stopped. Just as before when such catastrophes happened.
Aaaand found the clueless nit-picker. As anybody with two brain-cells can see, this is obviously per real-time interval large enough to give stable numbers, i.e. at least a week. It most certainly is _not_ per hour of labor. Even suggesting this means you have not understood anything at all. My very point is that the productivity per hour is dependent on hours worked overall per day/week and that the total sum per week decreases from a certain point of hour worked onward that is around 30 h/week.
If you have a STEM degree, I suggest you hand it back as you clearly have not enough insight into how to do measurements in the real world to deserve that degree.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Running around in the cold when there is not much to gather or hunt is probably a really bad idea.
The only one saying anything about "no benefits" here is you. I am merely pointing out that the metric used is fundamentally broken and that you should stop defending it. Also, in the civilized world, you get benefits regardless of how long you work and things like health insurance are _not_ tied to your job (for obvious reasons).
As I said, the stupidity is staggering. "Work hours" are generally not an useful productivity metric. They are only an useful metric to determine how many hours are missing from your life. The whole approach is utterly broken for most (not all) situations and that needs to change.
You think I do not speak to "the bosses" as well or that these limits do not apply to them? Whatever gave you that idea? Or do you not include "the bosses" in the "mental worker" category?
Also, I am not saying the "non-bosses" have the freedom to do something else. I do however notice that quite a few of the "non-bosses" defend working long hours and claim that this makes them more productive overall. And that is the thing I am talking about there: Lack of understanding. Understanding is a required component in addressing this problem. It seems to me the main reason so many people work so many hours in the US is that almost nobody understands that this is the wrong approach.
Of course, the stupidity is with those that cause the long working hours, whether it is "the bosses" or whether the workers are doing it to themselves. And, you know, from statements made, for example here, a lot of workers are actually doing it to themselves.
The sheer overall stupidity of that is staggering. I know it does happen, but all it does is nicely illustrating the utter cluelessness of management.
True. If you work around 40h formally, then an efficient mental worker will waste around 2h/day to improve efficiency. If you work, say,60h, then this does not work anymore and your productivity will sink significantly under that of somebody working 30h (or being at work 40h while working 30h).
Actually, not like this. As 30h/week workers are significantly more productive overall than those working more, this makes the problem worse. If we go to, say 20h/week, work, then the positive effect on the job-market will be there.
I never got that. I mean it has been known for a long, long time from studies by Ford and others that mental workers have peak efficiency at 6h/day for 5 days/week and that working more _decreases_ total (!) productivity. I guess there are so many americans that are virtue signalling by working (or claiming to work) much more that the sheer stupidity of doing so does not get through anymore.
So let me state this again: If you work 40h or more a week as a mental worker, then you are unproductive and self-destructive. If you work around 30h a week as mental worker, you are pretty much at peak overall (!) efficiently. And no, if you claim otherwise, then you are just uninformed. These facts are not up for dispute and they have not been up for dispute for a long time. The current experiments are just re-discovering known information.
Permission of the target that is. For one thing, all reasonable standards of evidence go out the window. That invites planting evidence. And since the feds are in no way morally superior to other people (if anything, they are significantly less moral), it will happen and in many cases the victim will not be able to mount an effective defense. The second problem is that people that need to fear being hacked in this way (and everybody not perfectly boring needs to) will self-censor. That is the death of civil society.
Of course, authoritarians of all colors, and especially the religious fuckups, will welcome that. Individual thoughts? We cannot have that! These people may find out that all authoritarian legends are just smoke and mirrors! And where do you find most authoritarians? Right, in government service. Because that is what they crave: Universal order, enforced by as much violence as needed. No deviations. No disruptions. No progress. No individuality.
Rich person also target and sometimes really not guilty.
Things get very murky when a lot of money is involved.
Low-power (energy and performance wise) is pretty much ARM these days, not x86. As far as I understand, this is about dropping 32 bit x86, not other architectures. For really old hardware, you can still update problematic stuff from sources and stay with the last 32 bit release otherwise.
But do not worry, they have never done that and it is actually not their job. Universities give you a base-understanding of a specific field (well, unless you study gender-"studies" or something in that direction), but they do not and should not provide job training. If you had a really good university program, you will probably end up using something like 30% of the content during your career. On the plus-side, that will be often stuff you just cannot pick up on the side and cannot really learn on the job. And it will generally be the foundation for you to learn more and decide in which direction you actually want to take your professional life.
There are some roadblocks upcoming though. People that liked their university studies and were pretty good at a significant part of the subjects and it was in the STEM field do not need to worry: There will be an a constant and possibly increasing need for your services. However the large majority that was more average, did not really enjoy the subjects, struggled with many or most or was not in STEM will probably be hit by an accelerated wave of jobs vanishing. I don't wish that on anybody, I think anybody that tries should be able to find a way to live decently, but businesses are hell-bent on eliminating people for more short-term revenue improvements and society has not yet found a way to deal with that.
Very much so. They would not want to lose their importance and job, would they? As soon as you have an inquisition, it will start to torture and kill people. Expecting anything else is deeply naive.
That tiny minority finds they can screw everything up without any opposition.
The enemy has clearly managed to get even deeper into Debian.
Its possible because Amazon and others have convinced people its a great idea to have hot mic; under third party control in their homes.
Its possible because people are stupid.
Indeed. There are numerous indicators people are generally stupid, but this one is a true gem.