We need more stigma against those devices, not less.
But at the same time we need to make medical vision devices that are exempt from those bans because they give strong privacy protections to the passerbys.
Why? If we can make medical devices with strong privacy protections, why can we not make regular glasses with strong privacy protections? This is a totally incoherent take.
What is the point of learning something an AI can already do better than you? There are better methods of brain training.
The situation reminds me of what my teachers used to tell me. "Learning how to look up things in a book will be a skill you'll need all your live and you won't carry a calculator with you at all times when you are grown up." Both assumptions were proven wrong before I was even out of school.
If the only remaining value of education is "to become a well rounded person" then why waste your time on it? It used to be you went to university because that was the only place to get knowledge from. Which is also why it was dominated by the rich and powerful. These days university feels a lot like paper money. Everyone just pretends it has a real value and because everyone agrees, that's where the value comes from.
Okay why do we need literacy if we have such beautiful screen readers? Maybe because it's better when you actually absorb these fundamental skills rather than rely on a disability aid to relieve you of a self imposed handicap.
Practicality. It's more convenient to read door and street signs, restaurant menus, name badges, ticket machines etc. etc. without going through a screen reader.
It's little effort for a large benefit. But anything you learn past middle school in formal education is a moderate to large effort for a small to neglectable benefit. And you'll forget it anyway if it is uninteresting and not useful in your daily life.
Anything interesting or useful in your daily life, you'll pick up by yourself even without formal education.
This same logic applies to all the upstream education. It's convinient to have a more limited calculator in your own brain, or better yet, the ability to simply see numerical properties factors, in a way a calculator doesn't replace. It's good when you can yourself understand the physics of everyday systems, or perform useful calculations about them. And if your work is indeed tied to it, it's good to know basic semiconductor physics, even if the ordinary person has a million more immediately useful things to study.
Knowledge is not a tool for answering the absolutely minimum questions you encounter in daily life, but a way of seeing the world. Reading allows you to use language in ways you could not imagine with spoken word alone, just as math or physics or computer science enable new ways of thinking inaccessible without intense study.
I don't disagree that this is all useful to have. My point of contention is that the effort required is not worth the time investment if you are going to forget about it in a few years anyway because you never needed it in your daily life.
Our brains can't hold infinite amounts of data and a lot of information will become inaccessible if not used regularly. This is also why most of us do not speak twelve different languages, despite this being a supremely useful skill that is relatively easy to pick up compared to semiconductor physics.
The students who want to learn aren't having the AI do it for them. And they will learn better in the evidence based system.
The ones who don't want to learn will cheat themselves of an education. This is their own problem and we shouldn't punish the actual students to catch these others.
This is exactly what I said. The obsession with grades (GPA) over education is the cause here. Intentionally making the education worse in order to protect the grading system.
Right, I can only imagine the most foolish DC operators are excited about this. Just more gas on the political fire, when DCs should be boring and out of public politics, even if they rank 15th for water consumption and 8th for energy consumption.
The bipartisan opinion shift towards absolute hate for data centers was extremely fast.
Just adding more fuel to one of the brightest fires out there in politics right now. Expect it to continue and grow as people feel even less heard, and any negative media towards data centers gets lots of clicks.
The AI companies and Trump seem to be doing everything they can to encourage this.
> Wouldn’t it be cool if we could just use standard OS threads, blocking APIs, avoid new shinies like io_uring, but still get to cancel any work reliably?
Wish more was said about this: why would that be cool? I get that having robust cancellation in standard threads is cool, but why do we want to avoid io_uring?
Programming asynchronous code is hard. Execution is split up, you have extra state machine to handle, extra resources to manage that need to survive across async boundaries. And by asynchronous, I mean either callbacks or manually checked completions from some event system. Modern languages hide that under async/await, which is much better from DX perspective, but still leads to split in the ecosystem, and it's hard to optimize across async boundaries.
This is an example why Go is such a successful language, in my view. It hides the async complexity and allows you to pretend you have a simple continuous thread of execution. It's just cheaper than system threads. Imagine if operating system threads and the blocking syscalls were this efficient.
I've spent the last year building a similar runtime for Zig. Purely because I want my applications to forget they are using things like io_uring in the background.
io_uring has been one of the greatest sources of exploits for the Linux kernel in years. io_uring has resulted in so many practical privilege escalation attacks that many containers completely block it, and companies like Google keep it entirely disabled. RHEL also ships a kernel without it by default.
reply