I find it extra funny that you think copyright protect small time authors and artists, when we have _very clear_ examples of it not protecting them for shit, even before the entire IA saga. Remember the Disney/Star Wars saga where they refused to pay the Star Wars author for the books they were selling?
Copyright doesn't protect small-time authors - because small-time authors don't have the means to harness the legal system to their advantage the way that big corpos that take advantage of them do.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but by that same logic we shouldn’t have any civil laws because regular people can’t afford to hire lawyers to sue people.
But still, if someone posts a copy of your book or painting online, you can pretty cheaply file a DMCA request that it be taken down, and most large players will comply. If you throw out copyright law altogether, you get rid of that too.
> But still, if someone posts a copy of your book or painting online, you can pretty cheaply file a DMCA request that it be taken down, and most large players will comply. If you throw out copyright law altogether, you get rid of that too.
Good, get rid of copyright law! It has only lead to pure rent seeking.
Authors and artists have no basis for payment in the absence of copyright laws. Like, anything they make would be literally free to steal. Literally... 1700s? Late 1600s?
What would be controversial is the current form of copyright that had been extended and expanded multiple times even during lifetime of many of us alive, often said semi-jokingly said to have been forced by Disney to keep Mickey Mouse covered under it until it had finally expired 70 years after the first publication and long after the death of its creator.
Copyright was established for the benefit of publishers, not authors. In the 1600s publishers were licensed, as part of a censorship system; the point was to only give licenses to publishers who followed the censorship rules. It was quite profitable for the publishers because they faced far less competition than they otherwise would.
The censorship system was abolished but the publishers wanted to keep the licensing system, so they came up with a new idea: licensed monopolies to publish specific books.
While your point is valid enough -- although it could have been made without this kind of snarky and sarcastic snide -- it seems clear that global copyright legislation is a lot more beneficial to the wealthy capital owners rather than the artists that you were alluding towards. Now, this is no insurmountable obstacle at least in theory. The laws could be modified in a way that lets small artists etc focus on following their passions without starving, without allowing capital to do what is essentially the intellectual equivalent of enclosure of the Commons.
Of course, one thing needed for this is the political will as well as getting rid of the idea of defending exploitation by the billionaire class by conflating their needs with the needs of starving artists because one can technically argue that copyright helps both, despite everyone knowing that one party is benefiting a lot more from it than the other.
All copyright does is give you standing to sue if somebody reproduces your work, in whole or in part. To sue "successfully," you need more financial resources than the copier.
The small artist copyright is a red herring. I think the number of small artists who make money from their work is frightfully small. For example, my partner makes some rather nice jewelry that is different from anything out there. We're doing the craft fair circuit to see if she can sell any and if it's worth continuing to make them.
She sells a relatively small number of pieces at each fair. Occasionally it's even enough to cover expenses.
Would copyright help her? No, because we wouldn't have the money to sue. Small copyright violations might be worth a cease and desist. Large copyright violations would have more money than us for the lawsuit. We would need that Goldilocks-sized violation. They are small enough to be responsive to the threat of a lawsuit but big enough that they have enough money that would be worthwhile suing them, i.e. enough to pay our lawyer.
> All copyright does is give you standing to sue if somebody reproduces your work, in whole or in part. To sue "successfully," you need more financial resources than the copier.
That is the fault of the way the legal system works, not anything to do with copyright law. It is true that we need a system in which you can't just get away with breaking the law if you have deeper pockets than your victim, but that will be true whether or not we have laws protecting copyright.
It’s easier to say that when your parents were right. But there are a lot of parents who pushed their now-graduating children into fields that AI has recently eaten. And before that, parents who pushed their kids into fields they hated and ended up burning out.
That said, I am probably going to do with my kids exactly what your parents did and just hope I’m not wrong about their economic future and passions. But man, it’s a tough strategy call.
If you look at the two extremes: "follow exactly the plan I've laid out for you to the letter" and "be whoever you want to be and do whatever you want to do" in a vacuum both of those come with understandable tradeoffs and risks.
So really the meat of the problem is treading that balance. Though I am of the belief that the mind, just like the body, needs cultivating through training and studying helps cultivate the mind. Also, breadth can really unlock different things in perspective and learning so in that respect I have faith in traditional curriculums - it's hard to predict what and how things will stick for a kid so just let them learn a bit of everything because it's possible something they learn in A might lead to an aha in "unrelated" B.
Probably the one invariant for our kid will be "you must work hard"
The Champ de Mars park has that general vibe and is presumably the primary training reference source here, but it definitely doesn’t look exactly as depicted here.
> The opposite is true. Google has been the main funding source for Mozilla
I think the point is more that Google has propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point to “competition” when antitrust probes seek to have them spin off their Chrome division or whatever.
It's a 20+ year old codebase that they just keep patching. The foundation was built in a competative market by some very intelligent people, and today its just a shambling zombie that's on life support kept up by a company who's main goal is politics and large salaries and not the browser.
It's not just that. It's that they propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point free software enthusiasts to when they bring up browsers.
Every conversation about free browsers results in Firefox, which is trash. And community efforts are almost singularly focused on supporting this thing that is 90% of the way there, but never actually getting there, while Mozilla is able to sit back and do nothing but still get paid. It's the resource curse applied to tech, with the lazy teammate being the one people are hoping will one day wake up and do the work.
Exactly. US antitrust regulatoors (especially ones that don't really want to do their jobs) seem to tend to look at an industry with more than one company in it and go "Yeah, looks great to me!", regardless of the facts on the ground.
I wonder if -should we ever be so lucky as to get a complete account- we'll learn that something vaguely similar happened with the OpenAI/Anthropic situation... not that one is financially dependent on the other, but that the fact that there are two companies doing the same thing instead of one gives the appearance of competition, which tends to ward off antitrust regulators.
And to clarify, this means encrypt it before it gets to the VPS. Just having full-disk encryption is not enough because cloud providers can dump RAM. There are tools that easily extract encryption keys from RAM.
So, really, you need to trust the cloud provider unless everything is encrypted on computers you own.
> And to clarify, this means encrypt it before it gets to the VPS. Just having full-disk encryption is not enough because cloud providers can dump RAM. There are tools that easily extract encryption keys from RAM.
True, but at the very least, you won't have to worry about discarded SSDs having your data in plaintext.
If utilitarianisms only interest is the consequence of the action and whether it resulted in a positive outlook. the consequence that we care about is "your body" and if "sorry" is uttered in time, then we can receive the reward, If in the relationship you say sorry and there is an expectation of all actions being forgiven, then, this is the ultimate get out of jail free card. it is infinite because you can always use it, therefore although there is recognition of wrongdoing (at first), there is no need for a preventative measure to take place, because the recognition only looks at the consequence of reverting the status of "wronged" to "righted", not about the causes of the status "wronged" to have happened. This leads to an infinite loop of wrongful actions. What would happen if we constantly said "sorry" unnecessarily at a set interval, which we'll call the canadian way, there would always be our desired consequence and no wrongdoing to ever take place!
Without the recognition and admittance of wrongdoing, the wrong action itself will repeat forever in the relationship because its tolerable. making it an infinite get out of jail free card. If this was a system, fault tolerance would be at 100%, the error rate is probably the highest in any system that could exist, if it was code, then there wouldn't even be such a thing as bugfixes, the only recourse is "have you tried rebooting it?" method of recovery systems. Of course if the fault tolerance was not 100% then everything would be different.
The problem I have with ECC discussions is that it’s always anecdotal. There is one Google study finding memory flips with some probability in their datacenters, but it was awhile ago. Everyone repeats the statement DDR5 on-die ECC isn’t a replacement for regular ECC, but nobody ever shows data on DDR5 bitflips. That’s not a knock on this article per se, but it’d be nice to have actual data here.
As TFA says, it is very likely that the hyperscalers continue to make studies about DRAM reliability in their servers, but they do not publish them, either because they believe that such data could be useful for competitors, or, more likely, they might have NDAs with the memory vendors.
When you do not own a great number of servers, you cannot provide anything else except anecdotal evidence.
Because the vast majority of PCs do not have ECC memory, even the companies that have a great number of PCs have no idea about the reliability of the memory used in those PCs, because it is very difficult to distinguish memory defects from the huge number of software bugs.
Moreover, the frequency of memory errors is proportional with the amount of memory you have, so those with tiny amounts of memory, like 8 GB, are much less likely to encounter memory errors than those who have 32 GB or 64 GB of DRAM in their PCs.
I have tried to always use ECC memory in my computers, whenever possible. Even my laptop is an older Dell Precision, with ECC memory.
But I can also offer only anecdotal testimony.
I have also seen cases like that mentioned in TFA, where the existence of ECC allowed to discover that some modules were not seated well in their sockets, so reseating them prevented the reappearance of errors.
I have also seen a case when a laptop was not used for a long time and it was stored in a rather humid place, so the contacts in the SODIMM sockets had oxidized, which resulted in frequent memory errors. Scrubbing vigorously the contacts and reinserting the memory modules solved the problem.
I have also seen many cases where certain memory modules degraded after many years of use, e.g. 5 or more years of 24/7 use, and they began to have frequent errors, e.g. multiple errors per day, even if when they were new the error rate could have been of one error per year or even less.
In such cases ECC was extremely useful, because the DIMM that had become worn out could be identified and replaced and the server could work fine some more years.
>> Everyone repeats the statement DDR5 on-die ECC isn’t a replacement for regular ECC, but nobody ever shows data on DDR5 bitflips.
That's because the on-die ECC cannot detect errors in the transmission of data from the DIMMs to the CPU. It seems like on-die ECC is meant to "hide" some level of errors to make less reliable RAM chips appear good. I have no idea if that's a reasonable way to do it, but it seems like it could be misused. Like TFA suggests, we need to know how the two levels of ECC interact.
Right. Everyone agrees that real ECC is more robust, and production servers of course run it. But it seems to me that if most RAM bitflips are in the module itself (rather than in transmission to CPU), then on-die ECC could in theory make the probability of a bitflip in practice so low that for things like home servers it isn’t worth the price premium for real ECC. But without data on this, everyone is just speculating.
On-die ECC was added in DDR5 because the error frequency has increased too much.
Its only effect was that now DDR5, as seen externally, has a reliability similar to that of the older memory generations. On-die ECChas not brought any serious improvement in reliability. It has just prevented the degradation of the reliability.
The errors generated internally are caused mostly by the ionizing radiation from the environment, which discharges the storage capacitors.
However there are many errors that appear during the communication between memories and the CPU, which are caused by the electrical noise from the environment.
These external errors are much less likely to appear for soldered DRAM. Because of this, for soldered LPDDRx memory it is less important to have end-to-end ECC than for socketed modules, which are much more vulnerable to noise.
The DDR5 standard has some options for using some error detection for the communication link, but it is impossible to know whether a given computer or motherboard has implemented such options or if they are enabled by the firmware when the motherboard has the physical support.
The only way to be certain that the memory works fine is to use ECC that covers completely the circuit from the CPU memory controller to the values stored in the DRAM and back to the CPU memory controller and your operating system has the appropriate device driver for obtaining the error reports.
Besides electrical noise, there are mechanical issues as well. I've seen systems fail memtest86+ after being moved, and the issue being fixed after reseating the DIMMs. ECC can catch mis-seated DIMMs very quickly.
The mechanical issues also act through increasing the sensitivity to electrical noise.
The imperfect contacts are equivalent to adding series resistors, possibly in parallel with parasitic capacitors, on the link traces, allowing a greater amplitude for the noise pulses.
This is the attitude that needs to change. If RAM is 25% of the system cost (say for a home server in your example), then the cost for ECC is 3% of the system cost. There is no world where accepting data corruption in order to save 3% cost is a reasonable tradeoff. ECC should be standard, period.
When I last looked at this (a couple of years ago), it wasn't just the cost difference—the ECC memory available to purchase was also slower than non-ECC offerings, or at least cost significantly more if I actually wanted the same speed. At least for me, going ECC simply didn't make sense.
Caveat that I was building a gaming PC at that time, I might have gone differently for a home server. And, this was before the memory market went nuts for unrelated reasons.
Yes, ECC DIMMs are available only for the memory speeds guaranteed to work by the manufacturers of CPUs, like Intel and AMD, e.g. for up to DDR5-5600 in UDIMMs or DDR5-6400 in RDIMMs.
The "gaming" DIMMs are available in much greater speeds, which are "overclocked" speeds, i.e. there exists absolutely no guarantee from Intel or AMD that they work at the advertised speed, even if they frequently do work.
However, with such overclocked DIMMs, you do not know how well they work. They might work most of the time, but e.g. in a hotter room they might have an error or two per day without you noticing, especially if the computer is used mainly for games.
For someone doing anything professional on a computer, overclocked DIMMs are not an acceptable choice.
> ECC DIMMs are available only for the memory speeds guaranteed to work by the manufacturers of CPUs, like Intel and AMD, e.g. for up to DDR5-5600 in UDIMMs or DDR5-6400 in RDIMMs.
This is not true[1]. These DIMMs are not guaranteed to work with all Threadripper CPUs, but they are guaranteed themselves to be stable at their advertised frequencies, which are higher than JEDEC. (And from my experience, 9000-series threadripper is perfectly happy to drive 8-channel 1Rx8 at 7200MT/s.)
AMD (and possibly Intel, I don’t have any experience with their recent offerings) also lets you overclock memory completely on WRX90. So if you buy JEDEC sticks, you’re welcome to try to push them as hard as you can.
AMD, Intel, and motherboard manufacturers do qualify the CPUs and motherboards for "overclocked" (above JEDEC) memory speeds. The systems are designed to work at the overclocked transmission speeds. They need to be paired with memory modules that are capable of functioning at those speeds. With ECC presently being a datacenter thing, companies only make it according to JEDEC specs. If ECC were standard for everyone, then the pre-qualified overclocked "gaming" memory modules would be available in ECC configuration as well.
Without ECC, nobody knows if their memory is working or not. Regardless whether it is running a standard JEDEC speed or an overclocked one.
The motherboard manufacturers test their motherboards, to ensure that they typically work with overclocked memory modules.
If you buy a complete gaming computer which includes overclocked memory, then hopefully the vendor has done a burn-in and has tested for some time the computer, as sold.
However, if you buy the CPU yourself, neither Intel nor AMD provides any guarantee that the CPU will work with overclocked memory.
It is upon you to test your assembled computer, but true tests would require a very long time and a climatic chamber, to offer any kind of certainty that the combination CPU-DIMMs works at the desired speed.
If you have ECC memory, you can try to overclock it and at least in this case you will know for sure if the memory works at the higher speed, or not.
Overclocking ECC memory is actually a method frequently used to verify whether the hardware ECC support and also the operating system EDAC driver work OK.
Both AMD and Intel publish on their site, for each CPU model, the maximum supported memory speed.
If the CPU does not work at that speed, you are entitled to a replacement or a refund.
For instance, AMD Ryzen™ 9 9950X3D is guaranteed to work with DDR5-5600, but with nothing faster. No AMD non-server CPU goes above this limit for DDR5.
Some of the Intel CPUs are guaranteed to work with faster memories, e.g. Core Ultra 9 285K with up to DDR5-6400, and the very recently launched Core Ultra 7 270K PLUS with up to DDR5-7200.
So as I was overclocking my AMD Ryzen 7 2700 I discovered that the Infinity Fabric has ECC because if I tried to run my fancy DDR-3466 ram at full speed I started getting logged errors from it. Those failed transactions slow down the system because the data needs to be corrected or even re-sent. The RAM runs fine overclocked at DDR4-4200 in a newer system, but my old Ryzen 7 2700 couldn't handle anything past DDR4-3266 without the errors creeping in.
Without the reported ECC on Infinity Fabric I would have had no idea that the errors were happening and affecting performance.
There are absolutely fast DDR5 ECC DIMMs[1]. Just break out your wallet (and piggy bank, and rainy day fund, and..)
The main reason there aren’t more options here is that a) high-frequency memory usually isn’t sufficiently stable, unless binned, and b) there’s very, very, very little demand.
Intel and AMD segmented the market. Workstations and servers use registered memory. Desktops use unregistered memory. Most desktop motherboards or CPUs do not support ECC. And most people who want ECC want reliable more than fast. So ECC unregistered above standard speed memory is made and priced for a niche. But this would change if ECC was standard.
Let me kmow where I can get ECC RAM that's only 12% more than the price of non-ECC and I'll strongly consider it the next time I do a build. (Otoh, prices are high, so I'm not building anything for a while unless stuff breaks)
Some years ago, it was easy to find ECC modules with a so small price difference.
From that time, I have a few old computers with 64 GB or 128 GB of DDR4 ECC memory.
Unfortunately, after the passage to DDR5, DDR5 ECC UDIMMs have become hard to find, and even when you could find them, the price difference could be as high as 30% to 50%.
> There is no world where accepting data corruption in order to save 3% cost is a reasonable tradeoff.
It is if you're doing something where corruption is detectable after the fact, and happens rarely enough that redoing affected work adds less than 3% overhead.
DRAM is just one level in the memory hierarchy and it can absolutely be tested by the other levels in the system. It won't be continually monitored, and there will be a performance penalty, and it's a PITA, but it can definitely be done without hardware ECC. Even some of that can be minimized as most tests are statistical in nature anyway.
If you do not monitor it continuously, you achieve nothing, because the memory errors happen seldom and unpredictably.
Without ECC, you need a custom operating system, which will compute some error detection code, e.g. a CRC, for each read-only memory page, i.e. including all code pages and constant pages, and all cached but not dirty file system pages, and which will check the CRC codes periodically in the background.
That would still leave the read-write data segments unprotected, though on those some errors may be benign, if the locations are overwritten later without being read again.
i have years and terabytes of ECC DDR4 and DDR5 memories, UDIMM and RDIMM, with edac enabled all this time, and i have literally never once observed a single error correction. however, (1) i built all these computers myself (2) the servers are located on the middle floor a thick, concrete multi-story warehouse-to-office conversion. as others have said, on a correctly built computer, the source of bit flips is cosmic radiation, and there is a lot of mass between these machines and the sky.
Yeah, fuck those billionaire authors and artists in coffee shops not wanting people to rip off the books and art they create without compensation.
reply