Skip to content
linux-nerds.org

linux-nerds.org
  1. Übersicht
  2. Technology
  3. Still booting after all these years: The people stuck using ancient Windows computers

Still booting after all these years: The people stuck using ancient Windows computers

Technology
99 74 241
Anmelden zum Antworten

  • A

    How to transform your Neovim to Cursor in minutes - Composio

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    4 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • P

    Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship explodes on test stand

    Technology technology
    51
    219 Stimmen
    51 Beiträge
    127 Aufrufe
    M
    Are the cars shitty, or are they ranked 3rd?
  • P

    Study: US kids who said their social media, phone, or video game use was “addictive” were 2x-3x more likely to have thoughts of suicide or self-harm by age 14

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    166 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    H
    In the meantime: Parents: don’t give your children lighted rectangles to play with.
  • S

    Amazon boss tells staff AI means their jobs are at risk in coming years

    Technology technology
    71
    1
    300 Stimmen
    71 Beiträge
    152 Aufrufe
    T
    Time to head for greener pastures.
  • P

    France Moves to Classify X as an Adult Site Amid Digital ID Crackdown

    Technology technology
    57
    1
    583 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    134 Aufrufe
    arararagi@ani.socialA
    Because artists are still there.
  • P

    The Current System of Online Advertising has Been Ruled Illegal by The Belgian Court of Appeal. Advertising itself is Still Allowed, but not in a Way That Secretly Tracks Everyone’s Behavior.

    Technology technology
    95
    1
    1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • O

    A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months

    Technology technology
    168
    1
    104 Stimmen
    168 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    smartmanapps@programming.devS
    At least that’s not how I’ve been taught in school If you had a bad teacher that doesn't mean everyone else had a bad teacher. You’re not teaching kids how to prove the quadratic formula, do you? We teach them how to do proofs, including several specific ones. No, you teach them how to use it instead. We teach them how to use everything, and how to do proofs as well. Your whole argument is just one big strawman. Again, with the order of operations Happens to be the topic of the post. It’s not a thing Yes it is! I’ve given you two examples that don’t follow any So you could not do the brackets first and still get the right answer? Nope! 2×2×(2-2)/2=0 2×2×2-2/2=7 That’s kinda random, but sure? Not random at all, given you were talking about students understanding how Maths works. 2+3×4 then it’s not an order of operation that plays the role here Yes it is! If I have 1 2-litre bottle of milk, and 4 3-litre bottles of milk, there's only 1 correct answer for how many litres of milk of have, and it ain't 20! Even elementary school kids know how to work it out just by counting up. They all derive from each other No they don't. The proof of order of operations has got nothing to do with any of the properties you mentioned. For example, commutation is used to prove identity And neither is used to prove the order of operations. 2 operators, no order followed Again with a cherry-picked example that only includes operators of the same precedence. You have no property that would allow for (2+3)×4 to be equal 2+3×4 And yet we have a proof of why 14 is the only correct answer to 2+3x4, why you have to do the multiplication first. Is that not correct? Of course it is. So what? It literally has subtraction and distribution No it didn't. It had Brackets (with subtraction inside) and Multiplication and Division. I thought you taught math, no? Yep, and I just pointed out that what you just said is wrong. 2-2(1+2) has Subtraction and Distribution. 2-2 is 2 being, hear me out, subtracted from 2 Which was done first because you had it inside Brackets, therefore not done in the Subtraction step in order of operations, but the Brackets step. Also, can you explain how is that cherry-picking? You already know - you know which operations to pick to make it look like there's no such thing as order of operations. If I tell you to look up at the sky at midnight and say "look - there's no such thing as the sun", that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the sun.
  • I

    Google Worried It Couldn’t Control How Israel Uses Project Nimbus, Files Reveal

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    88 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    C
    Won't someone think of the shareholders?!