I wish they left space to discuss the Jūminhyō and Hukou systems in China and Japan and how they impact non-residents.
For example, if your hukou is registered to a rural community, you do not have access to the same level of public healthcare that people with Shanghai hukous have.
Regarding the Japanese system, there are no restrictions on moving residence. Resident registration (Jūminhyō) can be done anywhere. Therefore, if you move to a new place of residence, it is common and recommended to register accordingly. I don't know the details, but I think the system in China is probably completely different.
I don't think the Jūminhyō system is similar to the Chinese one. You basically just need to have a utility bill or something with your name and address on it, and register it with your local ward office or city hall. There is no concept of being refused it unless you aren't a legal Japanese resident as far as I can tell?
The noise problem is caused by fans (air cooling). Data centers cooled by water do not have noisy fans. My understand is modern data center designs use close loop water systems, eliminating noise and water table issues.
You are correct the one that I referenced in Lansing's entertainment district is water cooled. They do not point out in newspaper accounts one of the reasons for its location there is they're supplying the heated water to the towns steam district. That heated water could possibly migrate chances of a electricity rate increase.
But as several data center engineers I have spoken to agreed with me that if it was put on one of the many empty parking lots West of the Capitol it would be surrounded by mostly empty government buildings where a majority of state workers are working from home. They would still be able to access the steam district.
If it's true closed loop (i.e. no water evaporation to cool the loop) then how are they cooling the radiators without fans?
Honestly, if there is a place it would have made sense to do evaporative cooling it was probably Michigan anyways... but I hope the closed loop option ends up working out just as well.
You know perfectly well what blocking VPN access means in common verbiage. I don't understand the motivation of these "hey look my WireGuard connection to home isn't blocked, you guys don't know the true meaning of VPN" comments that inevitably pop up in these discussions. Like come on, this is a tech forum, you're not impressing anyone for knowing the technical definition of VPN and how to set up WireGuard.
It's not so easy to setup. I mean: it's easy but it hits some real world constraints.
Example 1. I run Blockada on my Android phone, so I can block every ad even in apps and I can more or less firewall them (the outside calls). Blockada runs as a local VPN and unfortunately Android allows only one active VPN. So it's either Blockada or Wireguard. I'm with Blockada but I might occasionally want to disable it and enable Wireguard. I never did it yet because:
Example 2. WireGuard does not run everywhere. My little home ARM based server has a Linux kernel with some special driver to manage its hardware (it's pretty common on non-Raspberry ARM devices) and WireGuard does not run on it. It requires a newer kernel that I still cannot upgrade to and maybe I will never be able to. So I don't have anything to VPN to.
I might eventually put online a Raspberry, even an old model 3, as a bastion host on the home end of the VPN, but then it would be something else to care about and to power. It's not worth the mind share and the wattage so far.
To flip that though, what about just using those sketchy-ass malware-laden "residential IP" VPN providers and route your traffic through someone else's hacked up VPN running on a Fire TV stick they bought off JimBob for $200?
Besides the political implications, I think we should try to find an objective taxonomy, it's clear that privacy VPNs and network security VPNs are different products semantically, commercially and legally, even if the same core tech is used.
Possibly the configuration and network topology is different even, making it a technically different product, similar to how a DNS might be either an authorative server for a TLD, an ISP proxy for an end user, a consumer blacklist like pihole, or an industrial blacklist like spamhaus. It would be a non trivial mistake to conflate any pair of those and bring one up in an argument that refers to the other.
Yeah, it's an ignorant and arrogant take on the legal system.
In most places the law is exercised pragmatically, interpreted by presumed intention. That's why legal precedent is important. You likely won't convince any judge being anal about the wording (maybe if the law gets applied for the first time). You can derail anything semantically. Furthermore, despite apparent belief, laws are frequently formulated in such a way that a particular wider term is extended to help interpretation. Eg. "It is prohibited to use a VPN in a way capable and intended to obscure one's physical internet access point identification". (Not a lawyer, not a native speaker, don't get anal with this wording, either.) I very much doubt any legally binding document would even use the term 'VPN' primarily to describe the technical means for anonymization, but rather describe it functionally.
And this is rather an anemic take. The (proposed) UK VPN ban that was recently discussed here have a definition on what exactly is a "VPN" for the purposes of the ban (basically "VPNs generally advertised to normal consumers") but a lot simply shouted "ssh go brr" (and definitely did not read the proposed law). These "let's go techical" thinking never flies with the poeple who makes such legislation, and in (probably unpopular!) opinion we should talk to them in terms that they can understand. Yes, we don't want that law, but having a purist take would probably alienate regular people.
It doesn't really matter that a single person has found a loophole because many, many other people don't have such a luxury, and that's what the lawmakers are aiming for.
I have worked for fintech companies that mandate VPN use as a security measure.
It's going to be interesting when the majority of the UK accesses the internet via VPN because of the increasingly ridiculous hoops that the UK makes them go through, and the government tries to stop them while also allowing VPNs to be used by the tech sector.
I agree, these are two separate legal processes powered by the same technology. But the internet doesn't have any awareness of legality (thankfully) so we're stuck with only the technical meaning.
> The (proposed) UK VPN ban that was recently discussed here have a definition on what exactly is a "VPN" for the purposes of the ban (basically "VPNs generally advertised to normal consumers")
It’s not taking about IPsec tunnels between networkers, or a connection back to your home. It’s talking about surfshark
Maybe, at the moment, because when Surfshark is banned people will learn how to make their own VPN (like I said, it's not hard), or find some other source. And then the government will move to ban that, and we'll go round the loop again.
The point, again, is that the tech is the same, and there's no method for determining what purpose the VPN is being used for.
Tailscale is really not that hard to set up. There's an Apple TV app for it, even. And who doesn't have some friend in another state or country that would like an Apple TV?
Your friends don't find it uneasy that you can be tunneling illegal activities through their internet connection and have the FBI knocking at their door in a few months?
Exactly, I have friends from other countries. Friends I really like, I would not give a VPN access to my internet connection to most of them. They have to be the perfect intersection of technically competent (so that their computer doesn't get turned into a botnet) and fully trustworthy.
I do actually give VPN access to my mother that is not technically competent but I have full access to her computer and locked her down as much as possible
I live a thousand miles from another country. No I don't have friends in another country and I don't even know anyone with friends in another country except immigrants or spouses of immigrants.
How is it out of touch? GP comment makes it sound like the technical know to setup a VPN exit node is this crazily esoteric super weird nerdy thing that no one would expect anyone normal to even know about. Installing an Apple TV app onto an Apple TV and mailing it to a friend requires zero command line usage.
But no, Tailscale did not pay me for this comment. I do happen to know someone that works there though.
Don't bother with these comments. I made a similar reply to yours a few days ago and while most found it useful, a surprising amount of whataboutism occurred - no, Apple TV hardware isn't common, or no, only old people have them, or no, why would you use an Apple TV when [X] can do it cheaper, or no, why not self-host and not be dependent on Apple and Tailscale?
Entirely missing the point that setting up a VPN exit node on your own or someone else's connection is a crazily esoteric super weird nerdy thing outside of communities like HN, and Tailscale on an Apple TV box will not only work but automatically update itself with no intervention on your part, and that the person whose house it is in needs extremely minimal technical skill to do what you tell them to over the phone.
Thanks. With people in their own independent bubbles it's hard to tell, but with a guess at 25 million Apple TVs out there in the wild, I didn't think it was that esoteric, but what do I know.
I'd say that even the idea that you could VPN into your own network and forward all traffic through it is pretty far from the mainstream. Let alone how to actually do it. Most people think of VPN as a way to avoid porn blocks or getting tagged for piracy. But, as you and I both noted, the technical know-how for setting up Tailscale is not that high, and for using it is almost nil. Turn it on, pick an exit node, go. Combine that with a device that's intended as a consumer appliance that makes maintenance a non-issue, and you have a very good solution for the family geek.
>I connect to my residential ISP in the USA via VPN all the time and have never had issues with being blocked for VPN use.
Bit of a non sequitur, you would have to outline your entire usage pattern to even submit that as N=1.
GEOIP providers dont sit on your home network. They do accept data from third parties, and are themselves (likely) subscribed to other IP addressing lists. Mostly they are a data aggregator, and its garbage in > garbage out.
If someone, say netflix, but other services participate, flag you as having an inconsistent location, they may forward those details on and you can get added to one of these lists. You might see ip bans at various content providers.
But the implementation is so slapshod that you can just as likely, poison a single ip in a CGNAT pool, and have it take over a month for anyone to act on it, where some other users on your same ISP might experience the issue.
These things can also be weighted by usage, larger amounts of traffic are more interesting because it can represent a pool of more users, or more IP infringement per user.
You can also get hit from poor IP reputation, hosting a webserver with a proxy or php reverse shell, or a hundred other things.
(Also, larger ISPs might deal with a GEOIP provider selling lists of VPN users that include their IP address space, legally, rather than just going through the process of getting the list updated normally. This means the GEOIP providers can get skittish around some ISPs and might just not include them in lists)
There is even a single company in the unique position to actually tell where exactly(-ish, considering CGNAT exists) where an IP address is located: Google. They do use the "enhanced location" data on Android devices to pinpoint where an IP is, so a single Android device can actually change fings for Google (and YouTube).
I think this is true, if you can read in the language.
Its really difficult to help someone on tech issues if their device is configured for a language you don't understand. Simply changing the language is annoying, b/c then they can't understand the workflow I'm showing them in their language.
its not though... there is literally an infinite amount of work. If humans become 10,000x more efficient, then we still have infinite amount of work to do.
Not necessarily true. There are non-human bottlenecks to productivity, like energy, land area, available raw materials, etc. You're assuming humans can find ways to meaningfully contribute that do not bump up against any of those constraints. R&D is probably the only area not bottlenecked by one of the above out of the gate, and most humans are ill suited for that line of work.
> most humans are ill suited for that line of work.
Based on what? Certainly there are humans with crippling disabilities that remove them from pretty much any kind of work, but of the "normally functioning" population?
Most lack the necessary attention directed towards R&D as they're too busy living out other lives in other jobs. If that's what you mean, that is a fair point. But if those jobs went away as suggested earlier, they'd have nothing else to do but turn their attention towards R&D. That current world model wouldn't apply anymore.
Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc. I get the argument that "the whole world would be different, so present data isn't applicable", but, if that's your argument, then it's totally unfalsifiable.
> Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc.
Right. That much was obvious. But what does that mean in more detail? If you pick a random, normally capable, person off the street and give them everything they need to become successful in R&D, what ends up happening?
> If you pick a random, normally capable, person off the street and give them everything they need to become successful in R&D, what ends up happening?
Don't we run that experiment on every moderately wealthy child on the planet? I can tell you that the hit rate there is definitely not 100%.
I don't know. You're the one who has studied the data, not me. What's the answer?
If you are asking about what I've seen anecdotally, which is all you can expect of me given that I am not the one of us who is the subject matter expert between us, all those who were moderately wealthy children that I know have grown up into having success with R&D in at least some limited capacity. They haven't all dedicated their lives to R&D, but they've had no trouble being able to invent things when the situation necessitated it.
If they had more time to dedicate their life to it, I see no reason for why that would stop. But, again, you're the expert among us here. I don't know much about it — that is why I'm asking you.
Aside, R&D fundamentally isn't guaranteed to deliver fruit, so elaborate for us on how the research you spoke of differentiates between someone who is well suited to R&D work but never strikes gold due to the nature of the beast, and someone who cannot strike gold because they are straight up incapable as a person. That might help us communicate about this more effectively.
> which is all you can expect of me given that I am not the one of us
Not sure why the snark is necessary. Its pretty easy to look up academic achievement stratified by socioeconomic status. I'm not an expert, but the line for rich kids doesn't go to 100%.
> If they had more time to dedicate their life to it, I see no reason for why that would stop.
Because not everyone is a bottomless pit of ambition. Most people, given the option, engage in leisure in their free time.
> Aside, R&D fundamentally isn't guaranteed to deliver fruit, so elaborate for us on how the research you spoke of differentiates between someone who is well suited to R&D work but never strikes gold due to the nature of the beast, and someone who cannot strike gold because they are straight up incapable as a person. That might help us communicate about this more effectively.
I'm speaking in generalities. Research is generally a race, and the smartest and hardest working generally win the race. Even if everyone's IQ and ambition shot up, there would still be a smarter and harder working subset of people.
After that last paragraph, it isn't clear to me that you disagree with my core premise of "not everyone should do research".
Not sure why you think a computer screen is giving you snark, but you do you.
> I'm not an expert
You read through all of that data and research, as told earlier, and haven't become an expert...? Yeah right. No need to be so modest with me. Be proud of your achievements!
> Its pretty easy to look up academic achievement stratified by socioeconomic status.
It may be, but no need to waste time sauntering off on another, rather uninteresting, subject. We're talking about R&D, not academic achievement. Stay focused, by friend.
> Most people, given the option, engage in leisure in their free time.
R&D is the leisure activity of many people. We'll leave your data sources to quantify exactly what that means, but it is clearly large enough to be a recognizable set of the population.
> Research is generally a race
It can be where you are trying to be first to build a moat around something that scales massively. But not all R&D scales, or even wants to scale. Despite your unquantified "generally" claim, it remains unclear if most R&D is even trying to scale. There are a lot of hobbyists out there carrying out R&D with no plans for it beyond doing something for themselves.
> there would still be a smarter and harder working subset of people.
There is seemingly no end to how much R&D is possible. I guess at some point there is a pinnacle of human achievement, but it seems highly unlikely that we'll reach that point in the next thousand years. Humans are pretty shortsighted — the people from the year 1200 would have never imagined digital computers being a thing — but when the time comes we always find something new to immerse our thoughts in.
> You read through all of that data and research, as told earlier, and haven't become an expert...? Yeah right. No need to be so modest with me. Be proud of your achievements!
Okay. You seem upset, so I'll disengage. Have a great day!
As valuable as that diversion no doubt was for you, we still haven't established from your data sources how many people are involved in R&D in a hobby/pleasure/necessity capacity and how that compares to those who have chosen to dedicate their lives towards it.
If it is not in the data, you can say so, but it becomes impossible to know how the average person performs in R&D without it. Which then returns us to the original question: "Based on what?"
I appreciate you wanting to reorient the paper for me, but I wouldn't call that a win. I was fine with how it was already at rest. If anything, I lose, as the time you put into that was time not spent getting beck to me on the questions I have about the actual topic at hand.
Jobs functions will change over time. Not everyone will be able to do research roles, but robotics is far away from replacing human hands in any meaningful way. Humans need plumbers, home construction, healthcare professionals [0], teachers, judges, relationship driven roles (sales, account managers).
[0] - if robotics/ai can replace healthcare, healthcare costs would drop to zero...
1) Everything you've listed has finite demand, so cannot provide the 10,000x.
2) Robotics cannot drive costs to zero. Robots cost money and require maintenance.
Sure but at some point if literally everything tangible and essentially every imaginable commercial service can be done by robots and also designed by AI better than a human, humans are basically relegated to what kind of work? Something like being the exotic dancer or baby factory for a robot factory heir, or maybe a meat sacrifice on a Ukraine-esque battlefield to fight the other group of capital holders.
Thats also the reason why i still belive in "classic instruments" when configuring my trade app; the model wont give you the same entries on lets say 5 questions.
It's a very silly way of saying that the data the LLMs had access to was presented in chronological order, so that for instance, when they were trading on stocks at the start of the 8 month window, the LLMs could not just query their APIs to see the data from the end of the 8 month window.
Overall, it does sound weird. On the one hand, assuming I properly I understand what they are saying is that they removed model's ability to cheat based on their specific training. And I do get that nuance ablation is a thing, but this is not what they are discussing there. They are only removing one avenue of the model to 'cheat'. For all we know, some that data may have been part of its training set already...
- A rules engine that combines all model outputs and issues the appropriate treatments
Two Hat and Azure kinda had this, but they didn't support custom models or rules engine.
While I love the idea of redacting/auto-correcting media, e-commerce / social media companies are structurally setup against this. They'd rather stick with the status quo of rejection, than using nano-banana to remove non-compliant features (like pii) from the images.
Once, I had to anonymize student data, so we could have a prod copy on staging. So maybe there is a use-case there...
It’s been a different order of magnitude. IBM repurchased approximately half their outstanding stock. This is consistent with a low growth company that doesn’t know how to grow any more. (And isn’t bad - if you can’t produce a return on retained earnings, give them back to shareholders. Buybacks are the most efficient way to do this.)
I can’t explain why they have a PE ratio of 36 though. That’s too high for a “returning capital” mature company. Their top line revenue growth is single digit %s per year. Operating income and EBITDA are growing faster, but there’s only so much you can cut.
You may be right on the quantum computing bet, though that seems like an extraordinary valuation for a moonshot bet attached to a company that can’t commercialize innovation.
For example, if your hukou is registered to a rural community, you do not have access to the same level of public healthcare that people with Shanghai hukous have.
reply