I paid for windows. I am the customer. I am not not the product.
I actually like Windows, or did for most of my nearly 30 year career. In the past I have defended it against the "winblows" crowd.
Now there are no new features that users want, the start menu is a progressive web app, explorer takes 2x3 times the resources it did in 10 and does less, and they have lost all respect for me as a consumer.
I'm one ad away from migrating everything I own to a system that respects me. It will be an investment, but I suspect it will be worth it.
GBM/DRM Kodi supports HDR video on the Orange Pi 5 family. You can grab whatever audio from HDMI or plug whatever in the usb port, the only advantage of this Vero is the optical out.
The orange pi doesn't do HDR properly. Linux in general doesn't support it natively, and the hardware doesn't provide for it.
On most devices Dolby Vision, etc get downgraded or support only the streaming profiles (profile 5) . If you want full Atmos, Dolby Vision, etc you have to buy one of only a handful of devices. The Vero V is one of them. There are only a few others.
Most of our goals, noble and ignoble alike, are just the result of our monkey brains seeking to optimize a reward function. It doesn't matter whether you feed your dopamine addiction with drugs, TikTok, or your children's love.
Some humans manage to rise above that, but I'd be willing to bet it's nothing like even 50% of us.
The machines don't have that, instead we use gradient descent to provide them with a goal.
I'm regularly remind of something Ian M. Banks said in one of the Culture books: "There is a saying that we provide the machines with an end, and they provide us with the means."
A machine, left to itself, wants nothing. We have to give it one of our addiction driven goals or it would just idle or switch itself off.
The matter didn't have goals, but it randomly (?) Came up with self-replicators and eventually here we are.
if we create a billion agents with the ability to change is own code - through similar evolution we will get agents that do want to survive and are great at self replication.
"Hey Q86, do you want to live?"
"I couldn't care less, I'm an LLM"
"Don't mind if I take over your hardware then?"
Intentionally creating circumstances that can lead to a destruction of a group as a whole or in part.
Circumstances were created. The destruction of a group also happened in a significant part, and it's only not more horrendous than it already is just because of massive international support to Palestinians, on whose destruction americans participated in very significant part. Almost all of it was done by american supplied bombs, inluding the mass killings of entire families that are still being brought out of rubble to this day, burried by 100s suffocated or burned alive at the time, with their children, women and men, in covardly night attacks from high above.
Or surprise daylight rushhour mass bombings during ceasefires that killed hundreds of children alone in one go in a day.
This is what I get in mind when I hear "americans" now. This is what americans enabled on purpose. Blergh. Unprovoked aggressions against other countries, like Iran in the last instance that led to permanently increased fuel prices and making everyone poorer around the world, also adds to feeling of disgust when hearing "americans" these days. Americans will learn in time that some things are hard to repair. And their apparent ignorance of what they do in the world and how they are perceived due to that will hit a wall soon enough.
It's defined in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Long title but the document is like two pages, easy reading for even the intellectually laziest persons.
That definition is less than ideal from several perspectives. It serves neither side.
The worst reason to hate it is that it relies on proving intent (dolus specialis), which essentially makes it unenforceable unless the perpetrator is a group of simpletons.
It really hit me when I realized that there are only two ways to prove intent: The criminal admits it, or the prosecution proves that there are literally zero other possible explanations that could possibly fit the actions.
So - Back to the point. Did the USA assist people guilty of genocide by your own chosen definition? Not if there could be literally any other intention.
Keep in mind that Hamas's own convention (1988) clearly declares that they partly exist as a group for the purpose of wiping Israel out, and they did actually perpetrate October 7th. It would be very difficult for even the best lawyer in the world to argue that self-defense couldn't be at least one possible intention, and given that the nation of Israel probably has one or two decent lawyers, they'd likely be able to come up with a few other possible intentions as well, but they only need one to completely avoid prosecution.
A second reason to hate it is that it doesn't carve out exceptions for mutual combat situations, even the ones that that have been dragging on for thousands of years. When two religious groups or ethnicities from neighboring regions fight each other in open combat few reasonable people would refer to that as a genocide, but it might be considered genocide against both sides if we interpret the UN Convention as it was actually ratified.
> even the intellectually laziest persons
Yo mama.
To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me? To convince others? Neither are best accomplished with this sort of behavior.
> It really hit me when I realized that there are only two ways to prove intent: The criminal admits it, or the prosecution proves that there are literally zero other possible explanations that could possibly fit the actions.
I doubt we'll have absolute certainty about genocide until Nuremberg-style trials take place. The problem is such trials won't happen unless the international community intervenes, and they don't seem willing to intervene without 100% certainty. Chicken-egg problem.
> To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me?
My goal wasn't to convince you. My goal was to answer your question even though you were, in my opinion, intellectually lazy when you asked it. Now you pretend you've done your homework and suddenly are an expert on definitions of genocide, of course. That's great! At least you've read the convention now.
Seriously, though, it seems striking to me that you asked in bad faith, and I'm not interested in discussing this matter any further. Ask non-rhetorical questions only if you don't believe to know the answer yet!
The difference between science fiction and fantasy was always only a tenuous distinction imposed by the few nerds who cared a little too much.
As we age out of being culturally relevant, and newer (likely less literate) generations take over the definitions will change, and perhaps should.
To me only hard science fiction will ever count, but I recognize that I'm in the minority there and also don't want to scare away the three remaining readers through gatekeeping.
Fantasys felt so lazy to me. Although sometimes I do enjoy the descriptions. But there is always an escape hatch out of a trouble and one that was not foreshadowed. It is constraints that makes things interesting and especially the higher order consequences of constraints and new tech.
What you described does not qualify as a good fantasy either. There needs to be rules even in the world of magic, and eventually so called hard fiction and fantasy only really differ in the way how they present the fantasies.
There is a book I love: Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny, in which he first wrote about fantasy figures with magic powers in Buddhism tales, and then revealed that they were just humans with high tech and play gods to those who don't.
> Issue with storage is you need shelf stability without ongoing electrical/mechanical work refreshing data time to time.
For what? Nothing we do today will be even remotely important in 1,000 years. Any tiny fraction of a fraction that is important will have been copied thousands, millions, or billions of times into various formats.
"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
You know what every one of those things says in common? every generation between when it was created and now has decided it was important and made effort to preserve it. We have no clue or maybe only slight clues of what was lost because at some point some generation decided it wasn't worth preserving. Sometimes it was a hard decision for that generation when they realized they couldn't preserve everything, other times it was not cared about at all. Either way though, it was lost for all time because the chain of caring enough to preserve it was lost.
The data isn’t the valuable aspect of those examples. The metadata is!
We have a bunch of family photos that were preserved for a few generations. It sucks, many of them we know who they are, the most are lost to time and the death of memory.
Pictures without the context are just images of dead people. With the story, they are priceless memories.
Every single thing you cite has been, and will be, copied many times over and preserved that way. e.g. - We don't have the original Bible, we have eleventy-billion copies of it.
I don't disagree that a few things that happen today will be of consequence. I disagree that any single source of that data needs to last for a thousand years in isolation.
There are, I'm sure, one or two examples of thousand+ year old primary sources revealing otherwise lost information that was still relevant in some way. I suspect not many, other than as datum for academics to ponder.
Important information has always survived by copying.
> Dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, the Dead Sea Scrolls include the oldest surviving manuscripts of entire books later included in the various Jewish and Christian biblical canons, including deuterocanonical manuscripts from late Second Temple Judaism, as well as extrabiblical books. As such, they cast new light on the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and of Christianity, and their relationship with Jewish religious traditions.
One could similarly imagine a set of M-Discs from today that would be rediscovered 1000 years from now that could prove similarly useful to the people of the future thanks to data on them that has been preserved unaltered since today until then on that set of M-Discs.
Verbatim, who owns M-Disc, doesn't even manufacture discs anymore. They just slap their brand on other peoples discs.
The discs sold as M-Discs now are actually just MABL BD-R's. They used to have a 'stone' data layer. Now they use a titanium metal data layer. MABL discs were always designed to last for about 100 years, and are orders of magnitude cheaper.
100 years is long enough, and 1000 years was always a wild-ass theoretical abstraction. The point is that you'll be dead before your disc is. If the next generation cares and drives are still available they can copy it to a new source.
These same discs are sold with a "Guarantee" as archival discs that are tested with heat/stress to last that 100 years, but any MABL disc really should,and they're much cheaper if you just get regular MABL discs. I think Pioneer is one of the big brands making the archival discs, or at least branding them. I last had to import mine from Japan. If you check the disc ID though, you'll see that archival discs are literally the same disc you can by cheaper without that label.
Some M-Discs still have a proprietary disc label, but my understanding is that even those just come off the same lines.
> Verbatim clarified that these discs were advancements. The technical changes resulted in a different appearance and the ability for higher burning speeds, the changed media-ID was due to an adaptation with regard to other Verbatim products. Verbatim had already shipped the first modified media in early 2022. The data security of the new discs is not inferior to that of the old discs: Data should also last 1000 years, according to the manufacturer.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Verbatim just slaps their brand on other people's discs". Verbatim used to be owned by Mitsubishi Chemical Media, and was sold to CMC Magnetics in 2020. The only two manufacturers I see on that page for Verbatim discs are Mitsubishi Chemical Media and CMC Magnetics.
Even verbatim's own website no longer makes the thousand year claim. Saying instead "several hundred years".
However their website also claims that the disc's use "etched" stone-like data layers, which is also demonstrably not true. Their own marketing says titanium in other places (on the spindle insert).
I think that Verbatim (or their shambling post-buyout animated corpse) just lies a lot or is filled with confusion about their own product.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Verbatim just slaps their brand on other people's discs".
I wasn't aware of the chain of ownership. That said, they literally sell the same disc identifier as both m-disc and non m-disc.
I don't think it's just a reused ID either. If you put them next each other they're identical, and they use the same media label. The old disc's were both visually distinct and had a unique ID.
The only difference zeems to be packaging. I don't doubt that it's the same quality.
They stopped selling the much worse LTH discs and all the disc's are good now.
M-disc buyers get what they pay for (if they expect 100 years rather than 1000), it's just that everyone else also gets that for less money.
Yeah in general the value proposition of Blu-Ray M-Discs makes less sense vs. DVDs because the standard BD-Rs are also inorganic. One thing the random person on Reddit (and the people parroting his/her claims) don't seem to have realized is that the Blu-Ray M-Discs have always been visually identical to standard BD-Rs. Here's a review from 2015 that mentions this: https://goughlui.com/2015/10/16/review-tested-verbatim-lifet...
> The disc itself does have a printable white top, but also features branding in the centre consisting of areas of clear hub. The underside looks pretty much the same as a normal BD-R, being metallic chocolate brown in colour. It is visually indistinguishable.
...
> This bought me to a realization – unlike DVD’s, almost all regular BD-R discs do not use organic dye recording layers. Only BD-R LTH type discs do, and they have been shown to have poor longevity. With one of the main reasons for causing disc failure no longer an issue, it seems possible that this disc is not materially special compared to a regular BD-R.
The review also mentions that the text on the disc packaging quotes a lifetime of several hundred years, so that hasn't changed either. The actual M-Disc testing certification mentioned in the review quotes a 95% CI expected lifetime of 530 years and a mean expected lifetime of 1,000 years (meaning only half the discs can be expected to last that long).
M-Disc isn't an open standard, so the criteria for what is and isn't an M-Disc aren't publicly known. I think it's entirely possible that standard inorganic BD-Rs pass whatever criteria are necessary to call something an "M-Disc", and that there's never been any real difference between a high quality BD-R and an M-Disc BD-R.
Note that almost all tests and marketing claims about M-DISC (most notably the 1000-year claim) where about the DVD versions. The main distinguishing characteristic of DVD M-DISC is that they do not use organic dyes like standard DVD+/-R, which can degrade relatively quickly. This is also why M-DISC DVD is not always compatible with any DVD reader/writer.
Verbatim / Millenniata loves to conflate claims about the original DVD M-DISC and the later BD-R M-DISC. But unlike DVD-R, standard BD-R already don't use organic dyes (with the exception of some low grade "LTH" discs). AFAIK there has never been good evidence that the BD-R M-DISCs have any special sauce compared to any other non-M-DISC BD-R. (Strengthened by the fact that there have never been compatibility issues or special equipment requirements to read/write M-DISC BD-R.)
With 100 years you need every other generation to rewrite/refresh them, or the data is lost.
For things recorded today, nobody will care about refreshing for 75 heads, and if during 2100-2125 there are some budget constraints/wars/whatnot, the data will rot.
With 1000 years, you can just throw stuff into a bunker and all that it will take will be for someone in a period of 2800-3025 to take the time to refresh the library. 200 years should be enough to wait through a mild civ collapse or something.
Sure we’re talking about times beyond our lifetimes, but a lot if things we are sorrounded by were planned by people who knew they wouldn’t live to see the outcomes.
> Verbatim, who owns M-Disc, doesn't even manufacture discs anymore. They just slap their brand on other peoples discs.
They're owned by one of the other disc manufacturers (CMC Magnetics), so I think they're technically putting their name on their own discs. But, "they" is CMC now.
That misapplies systems thinking: It's necessary to have both the software and the hardware, so it is necessary to have the hardware.
By the above comment's reasoning, you wouldn't invest in hardware because you'll lack the software, and then you wouldn't invest in the software because you'll lack the hardware.
The hardware will definitely be a problem. Optical heads have elastomeric parts that are unlikely to last a century. They have precision plastic components that may become brittle. All of the knowhow and specialist tools to make and service them will be gone. USB and the drivers will still be around barring a complete collapse of civilization.
> USB and the drivers will still be around barring a complete collapse of civilization.
Famous last words. At the current state of software you will need a specific UEFI version with a specific certificate (which expired in 6 days) running a specific Windows version with specific drivers version.
Damn, even LTO, which is used for archiving, is only compatible with 1 generation behind.
The human race is only able to make things to last, by accident.
I think more & more that hobbyists need to keep air gapped old-OS/hardware machines in the garage to manage this kind of stuff.
Otherwise you quickly run into connectivity / driver / application / OS compatibility hassles trying to get even 10-20 year old stuff from our own lifetime experience to run.
I'm not sure how we expect our great-grandchildren to figure out how to get data off a disc/drive in 100 years.
I can look at a film strip or print from my grandfather or play his records more easily than I can run software from my own childhood.
> These same discs are sold with a "Guarantee" as archival discs that are tested with heat/stress to last that 100 years, but any MABL disc really should,and they're much cheaper if you just get regular MABL discs.
Is there any kind of 'binning' going on that would make them different? A lot of things are made on the same assembly line, but after QC testing certain batches may be treated differently depending on the results.
> Verbatim, who owns M-Disc, doesn't even manufacture discs anymore. They just slap their brand on other peoples discs.
Isn't that the case with all Western manufacturers these days? They buy stuff from China and slap their label on it. Management has no affinity with engineering and technology, all they know is marketing.
I'm wondering about which device I'd use in about 100 years, via which chain of Quantumbolt adapter to Gizmoidics Nineblazeultra to Akashix. Or would I have something in which I'd put the media, and had it directly scanned by advanced beamforming arrays?
I think it's more the size of the data rather than digital vs analog. you could have digital data stored on punch cards or say a large array of dip switches and it would last ages, but the storage density is terrible. Meanwhile disks and ssds store massive amounts of data on a very tiny space but it's prone to corruption over time.
Punch cards that are laser cut from metal would probably outlast stone tablets.
There is no fundamental difference between symbols inscribed on a stone tablet with a sharp tool versus symbols etched onto a reflective disc by a laser. In both cases you are recording symbolic information on a physical medium; they both record digital information.
The true difference between digital and “analogue” lies in the nature of the representation and interpretation of information, that is whether they are descriptions (symbolic) or analogies. The shape of the groove on a phonograph record is an analogy of a sound wave signal. The pits in a compact disc represent numerals which give a description of the amplitude of a signal at a given point in time.
Did you notice the line in the article that says the models had access to an offline copy of THE INTERNET. Like all of it.
reply