61–70 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn’t you just plug a capture card into the display out?
Every time you say 'just' an engineer who's already spent hours trying out your simple idea pulls out another clump of hair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time you say 'just' an engineer who's already spent hours trying out your simple idea pulls out another clump of hair.
Well I’m clearly coming at this from a naive perspective and I’m sure many people are learning this along with me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I’m clearly coming at this from a naive perspective and I’m sure many people are learning this along with me.
Excise the word "just" from your engineering vocabulary and you'll be better able to come across as naive instead of condescending or dismissive. I'm not trying to be snarky here, this is a genuine recommendation that will help your ideas be better received, both in the workplace and on internet forums.
We have plenty of computation. A decent laptop today is a supercomputer. Terabytes of storage can be had for under $200. Locked hardware isn’t much of an issue either. Most of that either can be unlocked or there are equivalently powerful unlocked alternatives to be had. What people must seize is the network, and the network effect. Most of today’s tech empires are built on owning the hub around which everyone commun…
The sad part is that nobody really prevents us from seizing the network. It is intrinsically decentralized by design. It takes hard work to subvert this. Yet we don't do it. A sort of digital rigor mortis has descended upon the land. A comatose capitulation, complete lack of vital signs, let alone the lust for life that characterized the early period of the Web when everything seemed possible. The "network effect" is…
I don't think we need to subvert the network. What we need to do is foster interest-specific community. As a child, I did not have access to the internet. I spent my days playing with friends and my communities were my family, the street I lived in, and my school.
Now my most used mobile app is WhatsApp where I interact only with people I know (I pruned my contact book) and because SMS and calls are not cheap. They added something called Channels that I'm not enabling. The other platform I visit is Hacker news, for tech related discussions. I don't care about Facebook, Twitter, or Google. The majority of people that does use them do not understand what is HTML or a domain name (based on my entourage).
I don't know if we can evade their grasps on our data (shadow profiling), but I know I'm not using them. And I try to evangelize people about them. But I don't have faith that the majority of people will abandon those social platforms. But I've done and now I'm purposely seeking more specific communities online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Largely agree with this analysis, however your claim about nvidia: > There is no way the nVidia monopoly will last more than another two years tops. I feel as if I've heard paraphrases of this sentiment for at least the last ~6 years. Is there a reason you think nvidia's monopoly is decreasing or will decrease? They have quite the lead in terms of market share for discrete GPUs AFAICT ( https://www.tomshardware.com/n…
It's different now because AI is hot, which is going to motivate other companies quite a bit more to try to get in on the hardware side. Prior to this year AI was much more of a niche thing. It wasn't seen as the unambiguous next generation of computing the way it is now.
They have poured an enormous amount of time and effort into CUDA and its related libraries. All of that work—in addition to the hardware—is what makes their moat deep and wide. If AMD and/or others invest similarly in ROCm, that will be very telling. Oh, and the work that the Mojo folks are doing is also very interesting; I could also see that as a looming threat for NVIDIA!
Are online user revolutions a thing? I can see this happening if the future continues on a dystopian path. Maybe users would organize and threatened to leave or have a change of power structure. Our online accounts are increasingly becoming our identities to the rest of the world, which consequently gives us agency in it, and social media has evolved to literally own this part of ourselves.
> Are online user revolutions a thing? How do you define that? People organizing themselves and changing their situation, successfully, is as old as time. Likely, you live in a country where democracy was forced on the powers-that-be in that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, Mastodon has been a nice community for me. I haven't really found my place in the lemmyverse. Maybe that's a good thing though.
To use the Mastodon web application, please enable JavaScript. Alternatively, try one of the native apps for Mastodon for your platform.
The headline borrows from Marx for radical cred, but all of Doctorow's ideas are from the anarcho-liberal school of permanent impotence. He spends the first 2000 words talking about how industry bribed the government to set unjust, inhumane policies on copyright, reverse-engineering, antitrust. Then in the 2nd half, all his tech proposals have to do with alternative tech solutions: federation, mastodon, driver coop a…
It's telling that every time an alternative, FOSS, socially-conscious tech product gets popular - CyanogenMod being a big example - they often end up doing unpopular shady things to monetize, and sometimes then fall apart. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27951250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27069913
We can't run random code from the internet, because we can't control its side effects when we run it. This leads to avoiding novelty in general. This leads to going only to "safe" sites, and only looking at "safe" types of content, from "safe" channels.
It doesn't help that the anti-virus systems we're forced to run (because of our insecure computers) flag any novel executables as "dangerous" merely because their signature hasn't previously been present in a statistically large enough sample of users.
As for the "access" part of internet connectivity, which was originally intended to be symmetric, we collectively don't care because there aren't any trustworthy operating systems that can withstand direct connection to the internet without the full time attention of system maintainers. You can't turn a box on with a public IP and expect it to survive a decade without updates. (Unlike the wiring in my house, transformer on the pole, and everything else in the power grid)
Once we get Genode, Fuchsia, GNU Hurd, or some other capabilities based OS for our machines, we can reverse at least the "safety" part of the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically, no. You don't have access to the device that contains the decrypted content. Of course, you could try to open up or bypass the DRM module (e.g., via the GPU driver during hardware accelerated decoding), but that won't work with a TPM module and signed kernel space. If you look at the security technologies introduced into consumer decides over the last decades, it all serves the dual purpose of securing…
>Of course, you could try to open up or bypass the DRM module (e.g., via the GPU driver during hardware accelerated decoding), but that won't work with a TPM module and signed kernel space. Nope. Thanks to HDCP the data never hits the kernel or the host memory unencrypted. It doesn't even require TPMs or signed kernels.
Also, if the DRM module supports hardware decoding, the GPU will need to see a decrypted stream. The GPU memory is in principle accessible to the driver. So if you can manipulate the driver, or setup another kernel module, you might be able to grab that content.