I agree with the premise but this article doesn't really provide a strong argument. It mentions stats about child exploitation but doesn't show how that's related to gtlds.
Stats about the block list are good (10% of gtld domains are blocked) but thay requires comparing it with a baseline. How many of non gtld domains are blocked?
> It mentions stats about child exploitation but doesn't show how that's related to gtlds.
Yeah, I wondered about that too. Any young people I know can barely tell you what a domain is. They're not directly visiting websites AFAIK and I don't think any of the platforms require a domain to participate.
> 9% experience online sexual extortion before the age of 18
That's an astronomical number and I'd assume it has to be an overall total. I hate those kinds of statistics because they're not telling you what you really need to know to make an informed decision. What's the percentage that involved a gTLD?
To me, this smells a bit like another effort at usurping control of the flow of information. Domains are an incredible tool for independence and the fact they've been co-opted by bad actors provides a great opportunity for a select few to seize control over what we're allowed to do with them :-(
They've made no effort to give normal participants an edge over the scammers and jump straight to censorship / control.
For example, consider that person on here with 'web.one' the other day. Why doesn't their expensive, premium domain include an increased level of trust and reputation?
If they want to do KYC, I think that's fine, but it should be an opt in system like the old EV certificates used to be. I don't need KYC and a bunch of controls to self-host things that no one else uses.
The problem with EV certificates is they became a money printing scam for the CAs. Plus, and this is an opinion, I think the platforms like Google and Facebook went out of their way to kill EV because damaging a trust indicator for domains benefits them when there are scams everywhere (as we're seeing now) and people need the platforms to "protect them" rather than having a fundamental understanding of how to evaluate risks on their own.
I'm no domain registry expert but I'm inclined to agree with you on 100% of this. Who needs a domain registration to cyber extort? Pretty sure they just DM that type of material to the victim and threaten to DM it to others. Simple. Same for distributing illicit materials. Pretty sure it's either dark web or private groups on platforms.
These days especially it seems like nearly every measure relating to "cybersecurity" or regulation in the online space in any way is always hitching itself loudly to some form of child sex abuse - I don't blame these various lobbyists for trying, since it's obviously a winning formula. Bring up a universally loathed offense, explain that your new scheme is somehow "needed" to cut down on it, then shout down your opposition as "soft on child abuse."
It's the playbook used in 2001 when it was The Terrorists. I suspect that since moral relativism has resulted in many people being unsure if even the sickest terrorists, who behead their prisoners on camera with a dull sword, might actually just be misunderstood freedom-fighters, now there's a new favorite bogeyman, this one more resistant to political reframing.
I think part of the problem is a lack of explanation and education. 10% of kids are being exploited and no one can tell us how it's happening, but everyone has a plan to fix it?
Is there money to invest in resources for kids that need help? Nope. Is there money to implement a global surveillance system that tracks and logs everything for AI analysis while attributing it to verified identities? You betcha!
When I was a kid deleting your account and creating a new one was a good solution if someone started harassing you. That's been taken away and, even worse, normalizing verified IDs is eliminating the last tiny bit of privacy everyone has, including kids. The bad actors are going to be able to follow people around forever IMO.
I use Maccy: https://github.com/p0deje/Maccy but last versions are kinda slow and it has a bug where it doesn't correctly delete old entries and the database keeps growing to >10 GB and RAM usage spikes to 1 GB.
I enjoyed reading this. I have been making my way through Needham's Visual Complex Analysis (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/visual-complex-analy...) book which takes a similar visual-focused view of teaching all of complex analysis. Chapter 2 in particular covers multivalue functions and branch points to make a similar point about how some paths will yield different values at same points.
Yes im reading it now. I find that the total lack of formalism makes things difficult from time to time just like his insistence on using basic geometry when there are easier ways. That being said, its an excellent book.
To advertise the maximum possible performance numbers, CPUs and GPUs massively shoot up the power draw for that final few percentage points. If you are worried about actual calculations/$, cutting back on the power will save your energy bill for practically no loss.
When I tested "ECO" mode on my AMD CPU, performance was ~97% of regular mode, and temperatures dropped 5-10C. I think ECO mode drops TDP from something like 100W->65W. Cheaper and cooler to run for basically no cost.
If you are bitcoin mining or selling GPU capacity, you are incredibly conscious of your energy bill, so it only makes sense to optimize the power draw.
Not true. A B200 "only" draws 1 kW. At 16¢ USD / kWh that's $1400 / year. When the hardware costs multiple tens of thousands you might be looking at a yearly electricity bill of ~3% of that. And that's before accounting for the datacenter itself.
The difference is that much of the hardware crypto was running on was dirt cheap in comparison. Add to that a lot of crypto was being run on discount gear in cobbled together setups. Some people were even stealing electricity which often involved installing large clusters of relatively cheap devices in places without proper cooling.
And you are only considering electricity bills for the GPU. Higher TDP also means more heat which means more cooling.
It's not really easy to make an off hand comment about costs. A 30-40% decreaae in electricity usage and heat output for a fleet of GPUs definitely makes a massive difference to your opex bottom line.
The datacenter will already have been built with an explicit cooling budget. Moving 1 watt of heat requires substantially less than 1 watt to do the work. So you've got a constant multiplier against something like a 9% annual failure rate and an order of magnitude difference in cost.
That just shows up as a constant factor, accounted for at build out. Consider if each watt dissipated required an additional watt. That's clearly an absurd overestimate yet it would "only" double power costs making the example $2800 / year. Underestimate the B200 at $30k USD and you've got 10.5 years of operation before you achieve parity as a fairly unrealistic worst case estimate. Now consider that at a 9% failure rate the average lifespan is only ~11 years. So electricity (both operation and cooling) is pretty much guaranteed to be less than half your total operating cost no matter how you slice it.
Most crypto mining on GPUs would use 100% of memory bandwidth, but only a fraction of the compute available. This is a consequence of ASIC resistance of their mining algorithms -- custom silicon can only offer a modest benefit over GPUs if the hard part is memory bandwidth.
AI optimised cards is the biggest cashcow for nvidia. They are definitely doing custom silicon. And Google et al have cards that don't even pretend to be able to do graphics.
There is more than one workload in AI. Inference for llms is memory constrained on even a single card. Training for llms is memory constrained on the level of racks. In both cases you hardly ever see more than 40% of advertised flops used.
I don’t think the author meant it as an insult to Poland.
Apple is unusually centralized (they don’t even have different business units; the company has a single balance sheet at P&L) and corporate level decision making is pretty much all done by the same small team at the mother ship.
So while all sorts of decisions are made locally, a hire outside Cupertino (which all of Poland happens to be) is extremely unlikely to signal a corporate shift.
Even a job ad for a role in Los Angeles would be equally unlikely to signal such a shift.
It's a long way from their headquarters, a massive time zone difference at least. I don't think they're working on something that needs the direct attention of leadership.
It is in Ireland for tax reasons tho... like you understand this is how corporations make concessions with government right? You get favorable terms if you provide jobs/tax revenue? 6,000 employee salaries is a drop in the bucket for a company skirting 10s to 100s of billions in tax revenue.
It was unanimously downvoted and attracted community flags, which is why I saw it. Others found a way to respond with substance, whereas your response seemed like snark. I can understand you didn't mean it to be seen as a low-quality comment; few people do. But I'm bringing to your attention the fact that I, and others in the community, read it as the kind of comment that we don’t want to see here.
Crawler, AI or not, cannot afford to pay per visit. The entire model of crawling works because the incremental cost of each crawl is so low. Even fractions of a penny would be prohibitive.
But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting.
Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a federal statute that congress can overturn (but the president cannot)
Thomas and Alito complained that they were being impeded from setting executive policy. Very easy to understand the argument that this court is too small.
The joke that Supreme Court judges are high priests interpreting the constitution as if it was holy scripture was in fact accurate description all along
