Many people unfortunately completely conflate one or more of these terms to generically mean "ROM-resident code that enables a device to self-bootstrap": BIOS, UEFI, firmware, bootloader, boot ROM, boot flash, IPL, (boot) monitor, microcode

1. Even correct convictions can later be found to be wrong. Death is irreversible and financially restituting someone's death can never benefit one wrongfully killed.

2. Unless death is the sentence, a sentence should not result in death. If you don't closely control and monitor when the state can do something, it increases the risk of misuse of that power by the state.

3. If cruelty and punishment really worked, crime would decrease over time, not increase.

4. The AC can be set to 75. That's not luxury but won't kill anyone with heatstroke.

Why not? Something that can do facial recognition + location tracking + keep and instantly transmit related digital records to a third party should be considered an invasion of privacy even if in public.

You’ll need to ban all cameras then. None of that is strictly related to glasses with a camera in themZ

Let's do it.

Someone capturing a single frame with a phone is smaller in volume, and more easily spotted and socially punished than someone recording video with glasses.

Why is it smaller in volume? Sure that’s the decision of the person and has nothing to do with the device?

When phones first had cameras, and people were not aware, it would have been easier to secretly film. But news flash, where I’m sitting right now in a cafe full of tech workers, nobody would notice if I started secretly filming on my phone.

If I wanted to secretly film, I’d be more confident of getting away with it using my phone than with a set of glasses which have a flashing light on them.

Both items in scope as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with glasses and uncovered phone cameras in picture-taking position being treated the same way from a privacy violation standpoint. Maybe we can also do something about phone speakers at max volume in inappropriate places as well.

So why not just take a picture with your Pixel, Mr. Bond?

Why not use an abacus to browse the web?

AI generated visuals are becoming a signal of A) low-effort, B) and/or unwillingness or inability to spend resources to genuinely present your product or brand.

Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.

> Both of these communicate that I will probably not get a good value for my money when buying your product or service.

This is where I stop following. Businesses should focus on where they differentiate, and I really don't care how they generate signage if I can read it. I don't get anything by them paying Banksy to make their menu instead of having Gemini generate it. And if there is any connection to getting good value, it's the inverse: I'm more likely to get good value when I'm not paying for fancy advertising. See: every drugstore that puts generics alongside brand names for cheaper.

Yes, generics are better value, but at least from the big drugstores and pharmacies they still have clean design - they just make it clear what their active ingredient is in what dosage, mention the branded equivalent, and then put the standard drug label on it, and that's about it.

The worst generative AI posters and restaurant menus I'm seeing from newer small businesses do not instill the same feeling that I'm getting generic-like value. To keep with the drug analogy, they feel like the combo pills you find somewhere in the back of a gas station which combine 10+ random supplements to help with 20+ different symptoms. Especially for new restaurants where real reviews are limited, menus with terrible AI generated food drawings really give me the same ick - that they might not be providing any good value at all.

However, i do admit that part of this is also that i live in an area where there is tons of competition for most cuisines I'm interested in, so I can use menu quality as a differientiating factor in the first place. If enough places around me were using sloppy AI menus i would probably ignore it.

You're free to ignore signals of cheapness if you want, as well as not care about quality. If you want generic restuarant food I guess you can go to McDonalds instead of a burger place; it's all the same value to you I guess.

You're using rhetoric to try and change the subject -- you're making a jump from "good value" to "lack of quality", and painting them with the same brush.

I'm saying I don't particularly value businesses that focus on things that are low impact for me. I'd rather my barista focus on sourcing good beans and making good coffee than paying someone to do a fancy custom menu for them. We see this all the time when we visit new areas. It's considered naive to follow whatever looks most glitzy -- every seasoned traveler will tell stories about all the tourist traps, and how the real quality is the hole-in-the-wall place all the locals gather.

What I'm saying is we shouldn't conflate quality with marketing and advertising, which is what posters are. You seem dead set on doing so anyway, and I'm not sure why.

There’s some level of irony around the fact that McDonalds spends quite a lot on branding and design.

Low effort, or low friction?

If I send a single email "subject: poster" "make me a poster for our event, details below, we need 200 printed" that's also low effort. If I do this on fiverr, it's also "unwillingness or inability to spend resources"

> your product or brand.

I think you are conflating a wide audience with a narrow idea. We aren't talking about just the large coorporations, or the popular rockband. There are local bookclubs, a carbootsale, a group of hobby-foo-bars showing their foo-bars at the local pub next month. A concert by "amateurs". Someone looking for an appartment. A cat that got lost.

Do all of these need to show high-effort and/or willingness to spend resources?

You are conflating the use of AI with effort. It does not need to imply low effort or low care. I’m hoping this tired narrative dies out soon.

"AI = low effort" is becoming a heuristic regardless of the assertion's absolute accuracy. It's probably not going to die soon as long as it keeps appearing in scammy or low-margin business places.

AI-generated visuals aren't the first to go through this. I'd say the early-to-mid 90's "desktop publishing" went through this too - as soon as everyone could make ads and flyers cheaply with Word, everyone did.

> "AI = low effort" is becoming a heuristic regardless of the assertion's absolute accuracy.

If you can tell that it's AI, that's probably because it is low effort. Higher-effort attempts pass more easily.

(Of course, that also requires an understanding that there are ways to apply effort to making a short request; and believing that it would make a difference; and noticing for yourself that the first output is bad; and trying. Quite a lot of people seem to lack at least one of these.)

>I’m hoping this tired narrative dies out soon.

It won't die off until AI stops being used with low effort. Which it is the majority the time used for.

Of course AI is low effort, it's the entire point of AI to be low effort.

The AI art is also a class/status marker.

If a business markets itself with these AIgen posters, you get wildly different responses from different groups.

boomers that spend all their time on Facebook will think “this is such a nice pretty poster” and be oblivious to the fact it is even ai. Even if they knew it was ai they don’t care.

Young people will think it is low class/trashy. Some hate it because it’s ai, others hate it because the poster is ugly/busy/confusing.

So you're OK with your bank website being invisible until people visit in person to get the certificates?

You shouldn't be really scared until all devices follow the pattern of the iPhone (and maybe new flagship Android phones too, I'm not in that camp).

New iPhones are expensive, more than $1000. Yet most people who get them finance it through their cellular carrier, usually 2 year plans, so it's just $30-$50 tacked on to the monthly cellphone bill. So ... no one cares unless it's going to double their bill.

Let's say the RAMopocalypse and other AI-driven chip pressues drives everything up even more; let's say now-cheap TVs are now $2000 or $3000. No biggie. Your cellphone company can offer you an eSIM-locked TV with bundled network and services, on a 5 year plan with free lifetime service and replacement, adding just $30-$40 to your bill for 5 years. Maybe it will include something like Family Tracker Life360 Intercom as a value-add - talk to your children to/from the TV to/from any phone on your plan, anywhere, anytime. Safety, etc.

Same thing with your laptop, home IoT/security devices, etc.

If ATSC 3.0 dies and gives way to 5g Broadcast, it'll be another enabler for something like this.

That's when the real lock-in will happen.

Tldr: you shouldnt be concerned because its only 36 months away lol

was this before mmap(2)?

mmap(2) in Unix predates Linux itself by several years (1988 Sun, 1990 BSD). mmap(2) was present in Linux well before any of the high performance databases, file systems and other applications that use(d) O_DIRECT appeared on Linux.

O_DIRECT was resisted by Torvalds and others, but it's there today, and used by supposedly important platforms. Nvidia even has an API to DMA data to and from GPUs that uses O_DIRECT. There are folks working on new async WAL O_DIRECT for PostgreSQL as well.

So what can be said? mmap(2) isn't sufficient for certain cases. Torvalds has faced and successfully navigated difficult design choices in a pragmatic manner. What else?

The lesson I take is this: there are levels to implementation complexity and value. The wisdom to decide the appropriate abstraction level is crucial. You are unlikely to be equipped well enough to beneficially utilize O_DIRECT, but it's not impossible and some, in fact, are so equipped.

Well-put

mmap makes database performance worse, not better, because it makes all I/O blocking.

L take. RAM is too slow for self-modifying code to be anywhere but F tier. This isn't 6502 land.

But it could be, there are bits about doing computation in RAM, self modifying code could work.

If DRAM gets the ability to modify itself (computations), it doesn't eliminate the cache layer between the CPU and DRAM. For the CPU to see updated DRAM values it has to bring in the DRAM to cache. Now, if that's a large amount of data, like 1MByte of computations, it's worth it, but for a couple of source/destination addresses in code, probably not. There's also the fact instruction and data caches are separate.

Now, if the RAM in the CPU cache gets computational ability as well, that all changes, but not sure really that would be better than SIMD/SEE/AVX stuff or expanding what can be done with the new tile registers Intel's rolling out.

No, NX precedes Spectre by a long shot. It was originally intended so an attacker couldn't use a buffer overflow to change the PC and execute directly out of the attacker-controlled buffer.

That is exactly what the poster to whom you replied said.

So Arm did not add another means to disable this kind of speculative execution, after Spectre was discovered, but they just reused the existing NX flag, expanding its functionality.

That poster wrote about speculative vulnerabilities. But buffer overflows have nothing to do with those.

I recall joystick PEEKs being fine as long as you used port 2. Port 1 was muxed with the keyboard port and would type characters (2's and left arrows from what I remember).

Indeed, and space bar is thought to be held when you press fire.