/tech/ - technology

>>2432
did you read one of my earlier posts or is that an insult, I also will check out turning it into a ps1 emulator.

>>2435
Nah not an insult.

>>2436
still confused but I'm just gonna drop it.

>>2437
Be careful. It is quite fragile.

>>2439
that isn't what i meant but still made me laugh

>>2270
Bump bc of curiosity and if it works in x86 better, i have some spare computers and would like to help some mesh network

>>2270
you could try the basic ones first (Tor, Freenet and I2P)

Do you want proper meshnets or just, networks. Tor is not really a meshnet at all, (not that you cant use it on an rpi, I do). Freenet and I2P are also pretty much overlay networks, riding ontop of the internet and pretty reliant on it.

Other things include for example hyperboria. But outside of specific geographic regions this isnt a valiable (also perhaps freifunk, but same thing). All those could howerver, also be run on a raspi to my knowledge.

You could start a meshnet of you own. But you will probably want far more than one rpi in that case.

>>2349
You just have bad taste in emojis Alice. ┐(︶▽︶)┌

>>2348
Only following tradition. Also, it's not censored, it's "language enhanced".

>>2350
Shut up seph

>>2341
who are you ?

>>2359

Him

>>1471
Benford's law/Zipf's law/Pareto Principle
Proof that inequality is the natural state of things.
Commies BTFO

>>1594
I think it's ironic that the followers of a thinker so cerebral and insightful as Stirner are all incapable of communicating in full sentences.

>>1471
I think its because of school

>>1595
why many word when few word do trick B)

this book has a lot of stuff about corporate intervention, you might find your answer here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5kYZgkKlFFgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=corporate+entrepreneurship+and+innovation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjioLysgIPgAhUtq4MKHVVIBLIQ6AEIJzAA&safe=active&surl=1#v=onepage&q=corporate%20entrepreneurship%20and%20innovation&f=false

Corporations headed by market economics and governments are setting the overall direction for technology. Most of it is either aligned with their incentives from get go, or gets forced that way. As for examples i've read about two country wide cybernetic endeavors (Cybersyn and OGAS) torn to pieces by their governments.

> To what degree are Govermants and corporations supressing technological advancement?
Completely, but not less than other countries (because they still need an efficient army). Internet is not needed by any governor so all governments try to destroy it (with PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, GDPR and other soykaf). See "Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey.

>>1483
>>1569
>does the simulation have to be run for us to "exist"
This is what I meant to adress on >>1558 when I said "any self-consist structure".

That would mean, any spacetime/particles arrengement that well-behaves according to some laws of physics.
Here I understand the laws of physics as nothing but a relationship between the information of the universe.

That way, that "spacetime/particles arrengement" would be just a complicated function, existing by itself and not necessarily being computed.
Universes are just valid solutions to the complex set of differential equations that is physics


This could imply something interesting:
You know the whole "muh uncertainty created multiple universes" thing?
It could very well be.
Maybe that for every POSSIBLE result or turn out of an event, there exists a universe/function where it happens, just because it can. That is, if a universe/function where the event happens is a valid solution for the laws of physics, then it exists.

So all possible outcomes exist even before the event presents itself.
We just don't know in which universe we are until it is shown to us.

>>33
I think I agree partially with >>114
though for slightly different reasons.

Basically: the one civilization we know of that's even close to technical maturity (ours) has not successfully created simulations of sufficient depths to (as far as anyone knows) house consciousness.

So it seems weird to act like creating simulations with this kind of depth must be a common thing across civilisations.

–

My other argument I imagine is much less popular in forums like this, and kind of hard to have a discussion about, I think, but I'm also very dubious that simulated consciousnesses would be conscious in the way that we are. (I.e., that they would have subjective experience of their simulated world).

I don't think it's _false_, but these discussions always seem to take it for granted that of course they would.

>>52
I see no reason to assume that because reality is perfectly simulated, the simulation would be perfect. This might seem like a small distinction at first - no matter what we do, it will be simulated to an accurate and precise outcome - but it could hold more meaningful implications, such as being able to see into the next higher simulation. I personally don't believe in a perfect simulation or a perfectly responsive simulation for reasons I'll explain later.

Imagine that we are living in a purely digital simulation. It makes little sense, except from a security standpoint, to have all hardware be totally dedicated to the simulation itself. One must still output data for analysis, or otherwise view a representation of the simulation. Otherwise the entire project is pointlessly simulating something that no entity will ever observe. This opens a path into other computers, much like a video game might have glitches. There are no perfect programs right now, why would we assume any exist on a much larger scale with far greater complexity? There is almost certainly a gap in the simulation's security and that gap could potentially be exploited. Of course, according to the argument, it is infinitely likely that the reality we "break into" would also be a simulation, and so on and so forth.

Here's why I don't think that works: a perfect simulation must simulate every interaction between all matter and energy simultaneously. Not necessarily in real time, but that doesn't matter. The simulation must itself be capable of recursively running copies of itself, indefinitely, in order to be considered a perfect simulation. This cannot obey known laws of physics, and would probably break quite a few laws if it somehow happened.

But maybe our simulation plays by different rules. Maybe our simulation is the lowest, or a simulation which has some artificial restriction on creating simulations.

>>42
I don't understand what consciousness outside a computer even means
I'm my mind, and my mind is my brain

I can't accept another valid definition of consciousness other than something that refers to thought processes, ie computation.

I firmly believe that a computer able to recreate a human brain process, it's emotional responses, etc, even if digitally instead of electro-chemically, where endorphin cascades would just be a mere formality but affects the thought process in the same way, then yes, that computer feels like a human

of course, there is a huge physical impossiblitiy of US creating such a thing realistically, but that's just a technical and engineering problem
In abstract, it would be a consciousness

>>1588
I don't know that we can say that we have any idea of our own society's technological maturity. There could very well be untold depths of computation and math that we've yet to discover.

At the end of the 19th century physics was 'solved', we had 'most' of the equations and there were only a few kinks to iron out, like gravity not working exactly as predicted and electrons behaving weirdly. Those two kinks snowballed into all of modern physics (more or less). Another example would be Godel's Incompleteness theorem, which (at least from my incredibly limited understanding) pulled the rug out under natural number theory which had just been thoroughly defined and thought to be complete (Not every true statement about naturals could be proven in that framework, and no sufficiently complicated framework could achieve this I think…). Someone correct me if I'm wrong. There are other examples across the history of science in any long-studied subject.

Not that I'm saying that simulations on the universal scale are possible just tat we can't use our own computational powers as a benchmark.

>>1970
>I don't understand the point of keyboards that do not have a numpad or a function row.
i'm the opposite. the only time I have ever used those keys was when I had a data entry job.

I have a tenkeyless keyboard at the moment. I would use a 60% keyboard but I use Cyrillic and having Esc sharing a key with a letter (Ё) is annoying.

i cant deal with super clanky mechanical keyboards as i see them as a big distraction from whatever im focusing on, which is why i have a nice, flat, not too clanky and not too quiet keyboard
but damn sometimes they look cool as fuck

This build is completely unnecessary but I don't even care.

>>2268
I had never tried a mech keyboard before and was worried about the sound, so I got the Silent Red Switches plus Silencer O-Rings, and now it really isn't louder than any other normal keyboard. You don''t have to go full typewriter if you don't want to.

thought my keyboard was broken today but flashed it again and it seems to work fine now

>>2139
I think Alice wanted to help but is asking OP to be more specific.

>>1488

I recommend you check out the project in this >>1412 thread. The website https://ameliorated.info has the latest verson available for download.

>>2139
I had to use "lockdown browser" by respondus once for a course to take exams on. Wouldn't run on wine or a vm and was forced to dual-boot windows. For proprietary software it was a surprising level of awfulness.

I know this thread is old, but you could try Windows 10 LTSB. It's a Buisness-oriented branch (so no consumer keys are sold, you'll have to crack it) that is factory-debloated: No MS Edge, Cortana, Store, Candy Crush preinstalled and so on. I have used it for about a year for vidya and it works like a charm.

>>2267
LTSB/LTSC still contains Cortana (renamed as "Search") as well as smartscreen which you cannot turn off or remove from within windows. Smartscreen in specific, sends telemetry back to microsoft on all devices you plug into your computer. And Smartscreen is just one thing, there are plenty of other telemetry items still in LTSB/LTSC.

>>2189
>Funny how he never mentions Unix
GNU literally stands for GNU is Not Unix.

>No one should have to play ball with Stallman's communist "never make money" philosophy of trying to force users to give away their work without being able to profit from it
The point is that the software itself is the reward. Everybody contributes and everybody benefits.
The only restriction is on the redistribution, you can't just take GPL code and turn it into a closed source product (the way Apple and Sony did with FreeBSD for example).
People still make plenty of money though. RedHat is/was a billion dollar company. There are even people who straightup sell GPL software for money like Grsec, it's not impossible.

>>2189
LINUX MAN BAD

Meh

>>2198
The GPL implies it. I say this in support of it.
Under capitalism, intellectual property rights are necessary to make money from anything like software, media, art.
The GPL is an attempt to use intellectual property law to prevent the establishment of intellectual property rights.
Like saying "this is my property and with my property rights I declare it free for the common use of all Present Day, Present Time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)))"

>>2263
as well, the only workarounds to this infringe on peoples control of their software in ways that are contrary to the free software movement, prompting it to write new licenses to try and protect against.
Such as representing the software over a web browser so that the firm is in full control of everything.

>>2225
I've never seem confirmation of any of that. It may very well be still based on Trident. Well, not that it matters now, since it's going to become another Chromium derivative.

Edge wasn't horrible. Wasn't perfect but still a decent default browser that works out of the box to load up email and simple soykaf. Kind of a bummer that they are selling out and essentially homogenizing the internet because YouTube doesn't like them.

>>2254
Yeah, diverse and open internet just lost one if it's most loyal proponent, bleah. More like they've got bitten by thier own game.

I very recently worked on the Edge team, and one of the reasons we decided to end EdgeHTML was because Google kept making changes to its sites that broke other browsers, and we couldn't keep up. For example, they recently added a hidden empty div over YouTube videos that causes our hardware acceleration fast-path to bail (should now be fixed in Win10 Oct update). Prior to that, our fairly state-of-the-art video acceleration put us well ahead of Chrome on video playback time on battery, but almost the instant they broke things on YouTube, they started advertising Chrome's dominance over Edge on video-watching battery life.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824

Makes the story a whole lot interesting…