Readit News logoReadit News
nullifidian commented on US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]   storage.courtlistener.com... · Posted by u/dave1629
echelon · 4 months ago
We need a better word than "duopoly" to describe what Apple and Google are. They're just as bad as a monopoly - and they're impossible to compete with.

Both Apple and Google need to be disrupted here. We should be able to see lots of healthy verticals for every single one of these product categories. They shouldn't accrue to two players and be impossible to dislodge.

I propose the word "Googolith" to describe {Google, Apple, Amazon}, though it's not a great attempt. We do need some kind of word or language to describe these anti-competitive titans that are impossible to innovate against. The word "monopoly" gets shut down, but the control they wield may as well be monopolistic. There's no choice and there's no competing. They're practically nation states.

nullifidian · 4 months ago
I've been using "quasi-monopoly".

Deleted Comment

nullifidian commented on Mathup: Easy MathML authoring tool with a quick to write syntax   mathup.xyz/... · Posted by u/runarberg
nullifidian · 6 months ago
If there had been something like this standardized in Markdown from the start, it might have had a chance for wide adoption. Right now, learning to see and use LaTeX math as easily as more ASCII-like notation is just more convenient since it is widely adopted (in GitHub, in VS Code, etc.). It's harder, but it also provides the added benefit of maintaining your LaTeX skills.

I think Google's Chrome team's choices of priorities bear a significant portion of the blame for this. They refused to implement MathML for the longest time, and even when it was implemented, it was partly done and financed by a third party. Without MathML, LaTeX-to-HTML JavaScript hacks became the norm, solidifying LaTeX as the standard even for non-typesetting use cases. Had MathML been implemented by Chrome early on, a more direct and easier translation from something ASCII-like to MathML would likely have been adopted.

nullifidian commented on WhiteSur: macOS-like theme for GTK desktops   github.com/vinceliuice/Wh... · Posted by u/nateb2022
nullifidian · 6 months ago
This reminded me of the anti-theming sentiment in the gnome developer community https://stopthemingmy.app/
nullifidian commented on Nvidia's RTX 5090 power connectors are melting   theverge.com/news/609207/... · Posted by u/ambigious7777
armada651 · 7 months ago
A server is not a personal computer. We are talking about enthusiast GPUs here who will install these components into their existing setup whereas servers are usually sold as a unit including the power supply.

> Additional cost shouldn't be an issue considering top level GPUs that would need such rail cost absurd money nowadays.

Bold of you to assume that Nvidia would be willing to cut into its margin to provide an optional feature with no marketable benefit other than electrical safety.

nullifidian · 7 months ago
>Nvidia would be willing to cut into its margin to provide

Why would that be optional on a top of the line GPU that requires it? NVIDIA has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about defining an extended ATX standard, that covers PSUs, and it would be optional in the product lines of PSU manufacturers. The 12VHPWR connector support in PSUs is already a premium thing, they just didn't go far enough.

nullifidian commented on Nvidia's RTX 5090 power connectors are melting   theverge.com/news/609207/... · Posted by u/ambigious7777
armada651 · 7 months ago
Because no PC power supply has a 24V rail and even though there's a fancy new connector you can still use an adapter to get the old-fashioned plugs.

After all you don't want to limit your market to people who can afford to buy both your most expensive GPU and a new power supply. In the PC market backwards compatibility is king.

nullifidian · 7 months ago
>Because no PC power supply has a 24V rail

Servers with NVIDIA H200 GPUs (Supermicro ones for example) have power supplies that have 54 volt rail, since that gpu requires it. I can easily imagine a premium ATX (non-mandatory, optional) variant that has higher voltage rail for people with powerful GPUs. Additional cost shouldn't be an issue considering top level GPUs that would need such rail cost absurd money nowadays.

nullifidian commented on Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline   cnbc.com/2025/01/17/supre... · Posted by u/kjhughes
Aunche · 8 months ago
The government doesn't care about the editorial policy so long as if it's not managed by a foreign adversary or proxies of a foreign adversary, which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment. This is consistent with the wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media who allegedly conspired with Russia. Meanwhile, the commentators on the channel, such as Tim Pool and Dave Rubin, claimed to have had full editorial control over their content that just so happened to align exactly with Russian propaganda, yet they were free to go.
nullifidian · 8 months ago
>which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment.

It obviously doesn't. That would mean the US Government can ban all foreign press, just by designating countries as "foreign adversaries". And "foreign adversaries" is a euphemism for "countries that don't submit". The SCOTUS just invented another exception to the absolutist interpretation.

>wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media

>were charged with failing to register as a foreign agent

This entire narrative together with the banning of Tiktok is wholly hypocritical, given the American media, tech, and NGO's influence/dominance around the world.

The moment someone achieved what the American entities have been doing around the world, the non-stop wailing of "foreign adversaries this, foreign adversaries that" started.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a country bordering Russia, the law requiring foreign-financed NGOs to register was declared to "stigmatize organizations that serve the citizens of Georgia" with accompanying travel bans for the authoritarian evil doers who passed said law by the US state department.

nullifidian commented on Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, but Trump might offer lifeline   cnbc.com/2025/01/17/supre... · Posted by u/kjhughes
Aunche · 8 months ago
What does this have to do with the First Amendment? How would this be different from an antitrust ruling that requires Alphabet to divest Youtube, but Alphabet decides to shut down Youtube instead?
nullifidian · 8 months ago
>What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

Because obviously changing the owner-editor of a media outlet has everything to do with their editorial policy. The SCOTUS just said that censorship is ok (and forcing the change of the editor is censorship, there is no doubt about it), as long as it's against another state's editorial preferences potentially having a significant audience in the country.

nullifidian commented on US lawmakers tell Apple, Google to be ready to remove TikTok from stores Jan. 19   reuters.com/legal/us-lawm... · Posted by u/thunderbong
kelnos · 9 months ago
Your argument is predicated on the idea that banning TikTok is censorship. It's not. No speech or information is being suppressed; any speech being made on TikTok can instead be made on other platforms.

This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control, and directs the services that they can control to suppress any information they don't want people talking about.

nullifidian · 9 months ago
Tiktok algorithms could be considered a form of editorial position(be it foreign government influenced one, or just the type of content they elevate / not remove), and in this sense it is similar to banning a newspaper(which would obviously be censorship) -- journalists could publish in other newspapers. Therefore banning TikTok absolutely is censorship.

>This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control

This is literally like this, and done precisely due to the lack of control due to the illegality of overt/direct speech regulation, and the fears that China would elevate content that isn't in the interest of the US in the broadest sense, but that is still legal according to the 1st amendment. The US Government has tremendously more influence on the local/western platforms, and on people who work there. (There is already an appeals court decision about Biden administration overstepping in communicating with online platforms about what content they don't like). The logic goes "We can't regulate speech like we want to, order what we like and what we don't like, but at least we can remove/censor individual owner-editors that we suspect might harbor some harmful intentions. That means no owners from 'evil' countries". That's about it.

Deleted Comment

u/nullifidian

KarmaCake day1110May 11, 2017View Original