arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology


formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1550517573926.jpg (18.8 KB, 462x322, 770A5842-462x322.jpg)


So I recently got a raspberry pi 3 and I have had a good time with it. I now have no practical use for it anymore and was wondering if I could play any games on it like League of Legends.
3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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


Nah not an insult.


still confused but I'm just gonna drop it.


Be careful. It is quite fragile.


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

File: 1546237588598.png (1.23 MB, 1200x798, 1200px-Raspberry_Pi_3_B .png)


1. i got a new raspberry pi, what should i do with it? it currently has:
- a telegram bot running in node.js
- ssh over tor so i can access it from anywhere

2. what mesh networks / anonymous peer to peer networks do you recommend that still have active communities? preferably one i could also use from the pi


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


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.

File: 1538727879300.png (6.07 KB, 200x200, gnusocial.png)


Is GNU Social worth using?
19 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


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


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


Shut up seph


who are you ?


File: 1510578874991.png (94.23 KB, 679x748, neki.1.png)


Ever noticed the regularity of the search term consciousness. I believe it's beacuse of the occurrence of autumn and the spiritual things that come with it but I wouldn't really know. What are other interesting patterns that you noticed and were fascinated by? (for a more pseudo-sciency discussion on this I made another topic in /psy/ I hope this is ok).


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


File: 1515976717432.jpg (21.64 KB, 220x567, cd5e9621eaba1700db26c56efd….jpg)

>neurosuggesting that natural == good.
>neurosuggesting one should behave as nature's underling, even if it goes against their interests.


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.


I think its because of school


why many word when few word do trick B)

File: 1548215084201.png (245.52 KB, 1681x2798, dadeb5882e6405eca206090b44….png)


What are some examples of their supression of technological advancement?



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.

File: 1492645351352.jpg (455.71 KB, 1920x1080, 1470137664431.jpg)


According to the simulation argument, there are only three possibilities:

1. almost zero civilizations achieve technological maturity

2. almost zero civilizations that reach technological maturity create world simulations

3. we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation

I don't think that our behavior should necessarily change depending on whether or not we are living in a computer simulation (although the first option seems pretty terrifying). That's not why I'm asking. My curiosity arises from a purely /sci/entific perspective.

So which is it lain?
20 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>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.


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.


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.


File: 1547041606057-0.jpg (47.46 KB, 1242x564, shakespear quote of the da….jpg)

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


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.

File: 1492715987234-0.jpg (2.09 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_0645.jpg)

File: 1492715987234-1.jpg (1.83 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_0649.JPG)

File: 1492715987234-2.jpg (1.73 MB, 4032x3024, IMG_0650.JPG)


Who here likes to express their rampant consumerism and technical elitism with expensive custom mechanical keyboards? I do!

I'll start; TADA68 with MOD-L switches (light, linear switches) with Signature Plastics DSA keycaps in GEC and GSF pbt.

Of all the compact 60% layouts I think the TADA 68 key layout is probably my favorite; you get to keep DEL/PGUP/PGDOWN and a separate tilde key as well as your directional arrows without any wasted blank space that some other layouts use.
34 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>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


File: 1546200377320.png (136.72 KB, 925x1266, Screenshot_2018-12-30 My A….png)

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


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

File: 1511500871169.jpg (30.01 KB, 534x534, 4fbae0dad48842299e0884c8b2….jpg)


Hello alice,
I'm a university student now, and I have to use Windows 10 for school after using Linux (floated between flavors) for a few years now.

I absolutely am not a fan of Windows anymore, so any tips on making more like Linux/rip out the spyware so I don't feel dirty when Microsoft shows me local ads?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


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



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


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.


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.

File: 1540827034168.jpg (699.68 KB, 2937x2469, 7789302-12070456.jpg)


Open source is an amoral, depoliticized substitute for the free-software movement… [I]t's not the name of a philosophy – it refers to the software, but not to the users. You'll find lots of cautious, timid organizations that do things that are useful, but they don't dare say: users deserve freedom. Like Creative Commons, which does useful, practical work – namely, preparing licences that respect the freedom to share. But Creative Commons doesn't say that users are entitled to the freedom to share; it doesn't say that it's wrong to deny people the freedom to share. It doesn't actively uphold that principle.

Of course, it's much easier to be a supporter of open source, because it doesn't commit you to anything. You could spend ten minutes a week doing things that help advance open source, or just say you're a supporter – and you're not a hypocrite, because you can't violate your principles if you haven't stated any. What's significant is that, in their attempt to separate our software from our ideas, they've reduced our ability to win people over by showing what those ideas have achieved…

For a long time, Microsoft was the main enemy of users' freedom, and then, for the past ten years or so, it's been Apple. When the first iThings came out, around 2007, it was a tremendous advance in contempt for users' freedom because it imposed censorship of applications – you could only install programs approved by Apple. Ironically, Apple has retreated from that a little bit. If a program is written in Swift, you can now install it yourself from source code. So, Apple computers are no longer 100 per cent jails. The tablets too. A jail is a computer in which installation of applications is censored. So Apple introduced the first jail computer with the iPhone. Then Microsoft started making computers that are jails, and now Apple has, you might say, opened a window into the jail – but not the main door.
14 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>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.






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!)))"


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.

File: 1544208880478.png (102.72 KB, 403x403, inori.png)


Microsoft announced recently that they are giving up their own efforts at building a full browser and will instead base the next generation of Internet Explorer on Chromium. What do you think about the move?
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


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.


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.

Makes the story a whole lot interesting…


File: 1545178483488.png (24.51 KB, 111x135, dino.png)

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
[ Catalog ]