I would love it if AI fizzled out and nvidia had to go back to making gaming cards. Just trying to have a simple life here and play video games, and ridiculous hype after hype keeps making it expensive.
AINFTs! You're right, and it's a bit depressing. Seems more and more that cloud gaming is the only long term solution the industry will tolerate...I hate it.
I use remmina, which uses xfreerdp under the hood. It works well, but I haven't managed to get smartcard authentication working, if that matters for your environment.
the sad part of this is that volume/priority at TSMC shifting from consumer chips that get sold to you and me, to corporate chips which likely will get sold to OpenAI/Amazon/MS or some other corporate datacenter, means that the un-democratization of computing power is well underway....
mirroring, come to think of it, the movement to un-democratize of modern governments...
(I would be happier if the news behind Nvidia's strength was sales of good, reasonably priced consumer GPU cards...but it's clearly not. I can walk down the street and buy anything from Tim Cook, but 9 out of 10 times, I cannot buy a 5080/5090 FE card from Jenson Huang).
Plus... Apple kinda wastes it. Not to be judgy, but we don't need 2nm chips to hardware-accelerate Netflix and Pornhub. The iPhone is locked-down, there's no worry that it will be a poor gaming platform or disrupt valuable workflows. A new iPhone chip means nothing anymore.
Between the $99/year sideloading, Liquid Glass and fighting fruitlessly against CUDA, I think Apple needs a break to reflect on why their software strategy is so unpopular with everyone. The hardware advances are doing them more harm than good at this point.
TSMC is a for profit business. Why would they care about the moral virtue purity of the applications running on their chips? Seriously illogical statement
Oh, they definitely don't. I'm just pointing out that Apple can afford to forfeit the latest nodes without sacrificing anything important, whereas Nvidia cannot.
Intel seems to be very competitive again when it comes to laptop battery life. If macbooks again get the reputation of sluggy and overheating that's not great for sales.
I mean sure it is fun to pick one company and hate it, but this is not the point being argued here.
But the point here is that a few companies are outbidding everyone else, hoarding shittons of compute and putting it into their data centers, to rent to people. This is effectively taking compute ownership away from consumers and centralizing compute i.e. un-democratising.
Apple outcompeting other companies to put their products into the hands of regular people is vastly different.
If consumers cared about compute ownership then they wouldn't be buying iPhones. This feels like a fairly natural progression of things, albeit a bit disappointing to Apple fans.
I kind of wonder what happens when/if the bubble bursts - will there be some glut of used inventory like after the first Dotcom bubble when remnants of fiber buildout from Qwest and the like were being sold off pennies on the dollar? or will there be a long term corporate despotism of compute from an oligopoly of companies?
I mean...there is a whole discussion about the questionable ethics of the research methods in the verge article. And human subjects and issues-of-consent questions aside, they are also messing with a mission critical system (linux kernel), and apparently left crappy code in there for all the maintainers to go back and weed out.
> I don't think it's unethical to send someone an email that has bad code in it.
It's unethical because of the bits you left out: sending code you know is bad, and doing so under false pretenses.
Whether or not you think this rises to the level of requiring IRB approval, surely you must be able to understand that wasting people's time like this is going to be viewed negatively by almost anyone. Some people might be willing to accept that doing this harm is worth it for the greater cause of the research, but that doesn't erase the harm done.
See another comment I made in this thread about GKH's response - the UMN group submitted a handful of small patches as part of this study, and "wasted" probably a handful of man hours or at worst a few man days of maintainer time. I don't really consider it a waste because evidence that critical open source infrastructure doesn't bother to run static analysis before merging code from randos is actually useful information that the public deserves to have.
GKH's response was to waste man weeks or man months of maintainer time persecuting every last commit that happened to come from umn.edu, despite having zero reason to believe these commits were more suspect than any other institution's commits.
> evidence that critical open source infrastructure doesn't bother to run static analysis before merging code from randos is actually useful information that the public deserves to have.
It's totally possible to obtain evidence of that without being an asshole to kernel maintainers. Which is the kind of thing that an ethics review conducted before the experiment could have pointed out. If the goal of the experiment was merely to demonstrate the lack of routine static analysis capable of catching such vulnerabilities, then the experiment's design was not justified and the experiment was needlessly harmful to non-consenting participants.
2) Yes, emails absolutely need IRB sign-off too. If you email a bunch of people asking for their health info or doing a survey, the IRB would smack you for unapproved human research without consent. Consent was obviously not given here.
1) They did not hit stable. GKH is referring, in this email, to a legitimate attempt to contribute from a student at UMN. Whether or not this student was part of the hypocrite commits study, I don't know. But it's not a hypocrite commit, just a normal buggy commit. You can tell, because it's from a umn.edu email address, which they did not use for hypocrite commits.
2) I don't actually care about the internal policies of UMN's IRB. Whether or not the study's approval was proper and whether they would get into trouble with their boss is not my problem. The point is that what they did is obviously not immoral or unethical.
The point of an IRB is to act as an outside reviewer of _ethics_. IRBs aren't some checklist thing admin put in to protect the University's reputation, they exist as a direct reaction to huge amounts of unethical human experimentation occurring last century.
The point of an IRB is to stop you from nonconsentually sterilizing people. As long as the system stops that from happening, I don't care about the paperwork. It's not my concern.
The "ethical" issues with this study do not rise to the level that I care, so the only objection is that they didn't get the IRB to rubber stamp it beforehand, which I also don't care about.
reply