Do you not the know the Second Foundation?
You may not agree with the current administration, but they won the popular vote. What would you rather them do, defy the current administration? Sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. Am I missing a deeper principle here or is it just a matter of "companies should do what I think is right"?
My point of reference is that back in undergrad (~10-15 years ago), I recall a class assignment where we had to optimize matrix multiplication on a CPU; typical good parallel implementations achieved about 100-130 gigaflops (on a... Nehalem or Westmere Xeon, I think?).
Which does make the clusters a fair bit less impressive, but also a lot more sensibly sized.
You are right, eventually something's gotta give. The path for this next leg isn't yet apparent to me.
P.s. how much is an exaflop or petaflop, and how significant is it? The numbers thrown around in this article don't mean anything to me. Is this new cluster way more powerful than the last top?
Which doesn’t help with understanding how much more impressive these are than the last clusters, but does to me at least put the amount of compute these clusters have into focus.
The goal of this project is not only to say the big number, but to say the big number before we discover the next bigger number.
The two gaps before that were each only 1 year though.
So depends on how lucky you think you’ll get.
Every area where a person could cross can and should be monitored. Walls, cameras, drones, satellites, sensors, and guards are all valid tools for border protection. The question just comes down to where and how they are deployed and maintained.
> The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better.
No one so far has managed to come up with an anything better. Have you?
People come here for economic opportunity. Remove the opportunity for people who enter without permission, and they stop coming. And that sort of solution deals with more than just border crossings.
Even on sites that have a "Like / Don't like" button, my understanding is that clicking "Don't like" is a form of "engagement", that the suggestion algorithm are going to reward.
Give me a button that says "this article was a scam", and have the publisher give the advertisement money back. Of better yet, give the advertisement money to charity / public services / whatever.
Take a cut of the money being transfered, charge the publishers for being able to get a "clickbait free" green mark if they implement the scheme.
Track the kind of articles that generate the most clickbait-angry comment. Sell back the data.
There might a business model.
What could work is social media giving people an easy button to block links to specific websites from appearing in their feed, or something along those lines. It’s a nice user feature, and having every clickbait article be a chance someone will choose to never see your website again could actually reign in some of the nonsense.
How would they know? I suspect there's some selection bias at play here because it might not be legal to discriminate on this basis.
> (...) because they have a piecing or like to take naked photos.
That's a strawman. The discussion doesn't concern people who "like to take naked photos"; it concerns people who do it for money. Depending on your values, that can be a significant difference.