What I'm advocating is a "downvote (or ignore) and move on" attitude, as opposed to "I'm going to post about this" stance. Because, similar to "your color scheme is not a11y-friendly" or "you're posting affiliatate-links" or "this is effectively a paywall", there is zero chance of a productive conversation sprouting from that.
> Because, similar to "your color scheme is not a11y-friendly" or "you're posting affiliatate-links" or "this is effectively a paywall", there is zero chance of a productive conversation sprouting from that.
Those are all legitimate concerns or even valid complaints, though, and, once raised, those concerns can be addressed by fixing the problem, if the person responsible for the state of affairs chooses to do so.
If someone is accused falsely of using AI or anything else that they genuinely didn’t do, like a paywall, then I can see your “downvote and move on” strategy as being perhaps expedient, but I don’t think your comparison is a helpful framing. Accessibility concerns are valid for the same reason as paywall concerns: it’s a valid position to desire our shared knowledge and culture to be accessible by one and by all without requiring a ticket to ride, entry through a turnstile, or submitting to profiling or tracking. If someone releases their ideas into the world, it’s now part of our shared consciousness and social fabric. Ideas can’t be owned once they’re shared, nor can knowledge be siloed once it’s dispersed.
It seems that you’re saying that simply because there isn’t a good rejoinder to false claims of AI usage that we shouldn’t make such claims at all, even legitimate ones, but this gives cover to bad actors and limits discourse to acceptable approved topics, and perhaps lowers the level of discourse by preventing necessary expectations of disclosure of AI usage from forming. If we throw in the towel on AI usage being expected to be disclosed, then that’s the whole ballgame. Folks will use it and not say so, because it will be considered rude to even suggest that AI was used, which isn’t helpful to the humans who have to live in such a society.
We ought to have good methodological reasons for the things we publish if we believe them to be true, and I’m not trying to be a naysayer or anything, but I respectfully disagree with your statement generally and on the points. All of the things you mentioned should be called out for cause, even if there isn’t much interesting discussion to be had, because the facts of the matters you mention are worth mentioning themselves in their own right. Just like we should let people like things, we should let people dislike things, and saying so adds checks and balances to our producer-consumer dynamic.
Even at 0F most modern heat pumps produce heat at a COP greater than 2. This means you get twice the rate of heat generation than a typical electric space heater. You are out of date, and wrong.
This is pseudo-intelligence: "can be exploited by an enemy to bring harm to American forces" means nothing when talking about a metal gun. This isn't some computer vulnerable to RCEs or fly by wire bullets.
But what if the "enemy" has AI bullets with recognition and target tracking for the P320, so they can reliably target the gun with a smart bullet in order to have their gun go off and shoot themselves in the leg or something? /sarcasm
I'm with you... the idea that anything to do with a common side arm is worthy of "military secrets" protection is, as I said, absurd.
I believe GP misspoke or misremembered and is referring to GDI, not drivers. GDI is the original Windows 2d graphics interface, widely used for drawing UI.
For performance reasons it lived in the NT kernel, together with the Window manager (which also draws windows using GDI).
Vista moved to a compositing window manager, I believe that was the point when GDI moved fully into userspace, drawing into the new per-window texture buffer instead of directly to the screen. And of course Windows 7 introduced Direct2d as the faster replacement, but you can still use GDI today.
> For performance reasons it lived in the NT kernel, together with the Window manager (which also draws windows using GDI).
Only from NT 4 onwards.
NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51 ran GDI in user space.
NT 4 moved it into the kernel.
NT 5 (branded "Windows 2000") and NT 5.1 (branded "Windows XP") kept it there.
It is interesting to consider is as moving back out again; it never was, in my understanding, and even today in "Windows Server Core" it still has the window system built in.
But GDI was not so much moved back out of the kernel again as replaced in NT 6 ("Vista") with the new Aero Compositor.
reply