• 30 Posts
  • 678 Comments
Joined 2 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月7日

help-circle
  • Russia certainly could. Given what we’ve seen in Ukraine, launching a limited raid into a NATO country seems like an exercise in losing a lot of men and material. At the same time, it’s not completely far fetched. If Russia feels that it won’t be punished or stopped from engaging in conquest, it could make a go at closing the Suwalki Gap. This would cut off the Baltic States from direct, overland re-supply, then try to conquer those states. Provided Russia made a fast enough land grab, NATO might just sit back and waffle over fighting against a nuclear armed state directly.

    I wouldn’t call such a thing “plausible”, but given the tepid response to Russian aggression in Ukraine and NATO nations’ fatigue with that conflict, they might just pull a Neville Chamberlain and decide that appeasement is worth trying again. “But certainly NATO wouldn’t want to risk Article 5 being seen as a paper tiger!” someone is bound to say. And maybe that’s true, but such treaties are just pieces of paper and may not hold up to the reality of artillery shells flying. Hopefully, we never find out. But, the general has a point that NATO needs to look like it can and will spill blood over Article 5, or Russia might just call it a bluff.



  • The remote access devices can be a good thing. The issue is one of control. Given the software driven nature and complexity of devices, bugs are inevitable. Having a way for the manufacturer to distribute those updates remotely is a good thing as it lowers costs, and makes it more likely the updates get deployed. That said, the ability to enable and disable that remote access system needs to be in the hands of the customer, not the manufacturer.

    As an example, many years ago I worked for a company which manufactured physical access control systems (think those stinking badges and readers at office buildings). And we had two scenarios come up which illustrate the issue quite well. In the first case, the hardware which controlled the individual doors had a bug which caused the doors to fail unlocked. And based on the age of the hardware the only way to update the firmware was to physically go to the device and replace an EEPROM. I spent a very long day wandering a customer’s site climbing a ladder over and over again. This was slow, expensive and just generally not a great experience for anyone involved. In the second case, there were database issues with a customer’s server. At that time, these systems weren’t internet connected so that route for support didn’t exist. However, we shipped each system with a modem and remote access software. So, the customer hooked up the modem, gave us a number to dial in and we fixed the problem fairly quickly. The customer then unplugged the modem and went about breaking the system again.

    Having a way for the manufacturer to connect and support the system is important. They just shouldn’t have free run of the system at all times. The customer should also be told about the remote support system before buying the system and be able to turn it off. Sure, it’s possible to have reasonably secure remote logins on the internet (see: SSH or VPN), but it’s far more secure to just not have the service exposed at all. How many routers have been hacked because the manufacturers decided to create and leave in backdoors?


  • There’s rather a lot of reports of heads remaining concious for up to 30 seconds or so after being separated from their body.

    Given the rather precipitous drop in blood pressure going to the brain, this claim seems pretty dubious. Twitching and motion would certainly be possible as autonomic functions go haywire, but actual consciousness seems far fetched.

    At the same time

    A shotgun to the back of the head doesn’t have that issue, although it does make a bit more of a mess.

    If I had to choose, I’d probably pick this over the guillotine as well. Seems like a lot less setup time and general anticipation.
    Overall, inert gas axphixiation might be the better choice (assuming one is forced into it).


  • The main thing I have from that time is several large boxes hanging about taking up shelf space and a burning hatred of MMOs. My wife and I got into WoW during late Vanilla. We stood in line at midnight to get the collector’s edition box for WotLK and later again for Cataclysm (we weren’t that far gone when The Burning Crusade released). Shortly after Cataclysm released, there was the Midsummer Fire Festival and as we were playing through it, we hit that wall where any more quests became locked behind “Do these daily quests 10,000 times to progress” and the whole suspension of disbelief just came crashing down. I had already hated daily quests and the grindy elements of the game, but at that moment I just said, “fuck this” and walked away from the game.

    I do look back fondly on some of the good times we had in the game. Certainly in Vanilla there was some amazing writing and world crafting. We met some good people and had a lot of fun over the years and I don’t regret the time or money spent. However, one thing it taught me is just how pointless MMOs are. They are specifically designed to be endless treadmills. And this can be OK, so long as the treadmill itself is well designed and fun. But, so many of the elements exist just to eat time. Instead of being fun, they suck the fun out of the game and turn it into a job.

    We even tried a few other MMOs after that point (e.g. Star Wars) just because we wanted something to fill that niche in our gaming time. But invariably, there would be the grind mechanics which ruined the game for us. Or worse yet, pay to win mechanics where the game would literally dangle offers of “pay $X to shortcut this pointless grind” (ESO pops to mind for this). If the game is offering me ways to pay money to not play the game, then I’ll take the easier route and not play the game at all, thank you very much.

    So ya, WoW taught me to hate MMOs and grinding in games. And that’s good, I guess.




  • What you are trying to do is called P2V, for Physical to Virtual. VMWare used to have tools specifically for this. I haven’t used them in a decade or more, but they likely still work. That should let you spin up the virtual system in VMWare Player (I’d test this before wiping the drive) and you can likely convert the resulting VM to other formats (e.g. VirtualBox). Again, test it out before wiping the drive, nothing sucks like discovering you lost data because you just had to rush things.



  • It would be interesting to see someone with the background to understand the arguments involved in the paper give it a good review.

    That said, I’ve never brought the simulation hypothesis on the simple grounds of compute resources. Part of the argument tends to be the idea of an infinite recursion of simulations, making the possible number of simulations infinite. This has one minor issue, where are all those simulations running? If the top level (call it U0 for Universe 0) is running a simulation (U1) and that simulation decides to run its own simulation (U2), where is U2 running? While the naive answer is U1, this cannot actually be true. U1 doesn’t actually exist, everything it it doing is actually being run up in U0. Therefore, for U1 to think it’s running U2, U0 needs to simulate U2 and pipe the results into U1. And this logic continues for every sub-simulation run. They must all be simulated by U0. And while U0 may have vast resources dedicated to their simulation, they do not have infinite resources and would have to limit the number of sub-simulation which could be run.







  • My bet is on it never getting completed. It’s going to be a running grift over the next few years. There will be delay after delay after delay with multiple “independent” contractors rolling through to deal with whatever the current delay is. Those contractors will be chosen via a competitive bid process,. The company bidding the highest kickbacks to Trump being awarded the contract. At the end of the Trump administration, anything actually constructed on the grounds will need to be torn down due to engineering failures, and multitudes of bugs planted by foreign spy agencies.



  • Traditions exist to pass on learned knowledge and for social cohesion. Prior to widespread education, many local groups had to learn the same lessons and find a way to pass those on from person to person and generation to generation. Given that this also tended to coincide with societies not having the best grasp on reality (germ theory is not that old), the knowledge being passed on was often specious. But, it might also contain useful bits which worked.

    For example some early societies would pack honey into a wound. Why? Fuck if they knew, but that was what the wise men said to do. It turns out that honey is a natural anti-septic and helps to prevent infection. They had no knowledge of this, but had built up a tradition around it, probably because it seemed to work. And so that got passed on.

    The other aspect of traditions is social. When people do a thing together, they tend to bond and become willing to engage in more pro-social behaviors. It isn’t all that important what the activity it, so long as people do it together. The more people feel like they are part of the in-group, the more they will work to protect and sacrifice for that in-group.

    Sure, a lot of traditions are complete crap. They are superstition wrapped in a “that’s the way we’ve always done it” attitude. But it’s important not to overlook their significance to a population. The Christian Church ran headlong into this time and again through European history as they sought to convert various groups. Those groups tended to hold on to old traditions and just blended them into Christianity. This resulted in a fairly fractured religious landscape, but the Church generally tolerated it, because trying to quash it led to too many problems. While stories of various Easter and Christmas traditions being Pagan in origin are likely apocryphal, there are echos of older religious beliefs hanging about.

    It’s best to be careful when looking at a particular group’s traditions and calling them “backwards” or some other epitaph. Yes, they almost certainly have no basis in the scientific method. But, the value of those traditions to a people are very real. And so long as they are not harmful to others, you’re likely to do more harm trying to remove them than by simply allowing folks to just enjoy them.