1_person

Would it be bad if you were the prisoner?

It's not even remotely a tricky problem.

It's just a trick, of convincing ourselves it's not our problem when we are the cause.

> 70% of land was owned by wealthy nobles, and they used the profits from their land ownership to purchase all new land-producing/discovering capital and therefore become the owners of all new land coming onto the market

So, basically, like REITs? It's funny that graphics card feature sets are what generate moral outrage when a feudal regression happening in real time before our very eyes in regards to the basic necessities of life.

Either way you're ignoring human nature. The other human nature is the nature of power to corrupt, ignored in reducing the transparency of the judicial and executive processes. I can't think of a single historical or contemporary example of government secrecy which has produced morally consistent outcomes. I do not think such things can exist without eventually corrupting the process they serve.

As I said below in another thread, banning discrimination on the basis of judicial and criminal history would immediately and obviously "change human nature" because the practice of discrimination on the basis of these histories occurs openly as a best practice under standing precedent in almost every area of society.

It's literally on application forms -- how can you NOT think that requiring "the question" to be absent from the form would change the conversation about this kind of discrimination?

Considering that the status quo is currently that literally asking the individual and querying the source of truth to confirm the history of an individual directly for the purpose of discrimination are ubiquitous practices... yes, I think such laws would be very effective in reducing discrimination on the basis of criminal and judicial history.

If we have not even said that it is wrong, then it's going to happen. Saying that it is wrong and should stop happening is the first incremental step in reducing its rate of occurrence.

> Yep, making it illegal to pay the ransom is a good way to stop people from having that choice. If police themselves are paying a ransom, that might make it hard to make it illegal.

Ransoming itself is already illegal and yet people still have the choice to do it.

Why would making paying the ransom illegal remove the choice to do it?

> You don't need to get the proportion to 0 to help people. Reducing the proportion is helpful. If you reduce the amount of people paying (say you convince half the population that it's immoral to pay), the ransomware gangs will be less profitable, and will invest less money in ransomware and thus less people will be attacked.

It's something that's trivial to automate which produces positive cash flow, which makes it something approaching a thermodynamic impossibility to prevent from happening.

We made spamming illegal. Most of what is spammed is already illegal. So there's no spam anymore, right?

The policy suggested produces obviously absurd outcomes when applied to plausible scenarios.

It does more harm than good, and is an emotional knee jerk which does not survive rational analysis.

I think you actually have that backwards. You can't ban public mugshots and have a free and open society. If arrests can be secret then there is no executive or judicial oversight.

But you can make charged and convicted statuses a protected class, and ban its consideration in any context as has been done for other protected classes. After all, if we believe that the process of justice rectifies wrongs, then the matter should be closed when the process has been completed. If we do not believe that the process of justice functionally rehabilitates and fairly rectifies, such that consideration of history beyond the closure of a matter is necessary, then what exactly is the aim of that process?

We could also educate the public about the purpose of the justice system, moral complexity in the assignment of responsibility in the light of historical/social/environmental/economic factors, psychology of criminality and rehabilitation, and the frequency of successful rehabilitation and subsequent significant contribution.

Pixels aren't the problem, the behavior of dehumanization is the problem.

The traffic goes through this "new infrastructure" not out of necessity but because it's free and allows the user to pretend like a number of problems don't exist.

Terrestrial optical networks operate far, far below capacity to create artificial scarcity, which is to a certain extent necessary to recoup the capital expenditures in a competitive market, and is to a certain extent an abuse of an under-regulated natural monopoly.

If you could eliminate all adversarial factors and put every data service subscriber's payment for a single month into a pool, and that pool purchased only transceivers, passive optics and switches, and this hardware was distributed to every network operator perfectly fairly based on its contribution to the global maximization of available network capacity, then the delivered capacity to the end user could increase by something like 4.5 orders of magnitude with no substantial change in topology or subscriber or provider costs afterwards using the existing fiber, with a few more orders of magnitude possible with a fatter tree before the backbone costs explode.

With DWDM you can carry 100+ channels of 100Gbps over a single fiber today, with commodity, off the shelf components. Most fiber in the ground today is probably still lit with a single wave of 10G, if it's not just dark.

This distribution model is not even remotely a technical necessity, it's an arbitrary local minima reached largely by exploitative market distortions and adversarial economics.

or, really, what I mean to say is, there is no way to stop everyone from paying ransoms when we assume they are rational or even pseudo-rational actors, except by making it impossible for them to be presented with the choice of paying a ransom which makes sense to them to pay from their perspective

for example, if someone is going to die based on the information, then we would have to be ready to kill that person anyway to make a point, and apparently have perfect information about everything except how to stop this tragedy from happening, in any case the person being ransomed is essentially morally bound to pay the ransom, with the only difference in the vindictive justice case being the tangentially but not necessarily meaningfully involved party is guaranteed to die, and that doesn't seem like the outcome we're looking for here really

I think the pragmatic current realization of a functional data flow pipeline as described in my earlier reply incidentally achieves exactly what you mention here:

> Sure, but even faster is not to loop over intermediate arrays at all, by virtue of never constructing them in the first place when they aren't necessary.

In those examples of this type of pipeline, the vectors you start with are slices of hardware device descriptor queues which reference a DMA region, and by progressive transformation of the receive buffers and composition with additional buffer regions through intermediate decoded states you produce reply buffers.

The hardware is programmed to sample only the packets of interest to this descriptor queue, and copies the packets matching this filter directly to the DMA region referenced in the descriptor it places in the queue.

With sufficiently sophisticated hardware it is possible to offload decode of increasingly large fragments of protocol logic or even entire applications.

Description of the operations in a language of common composable operations over the type of vectors of buffers allows the amount of any given application which is mapped to e.g. general purpose CPU, GPU or other FPGA/ASIC offload feature instructions to vary continuously over time or API surface at runtime pretty neatly, it creates breakpoints in the logic flow that more or less always map exactly to functional hardware boundaries, because everything's pretty much just vectors of buffers all the way down really when you think about it. Your process's entire runtime is just another vector of buffers to the kernel.

I'll try to adhere more closely to the ritual forms of disingenuous presentation and allusion brinksmanship.

As an aside, I find your choice of pronoun fascinating and enlightening.

It would be helpful if you could clearly spell out the opinions the rules actually apply to.

I've been guessing wrong lately, it seems.

Do you think it's also fair to describe $266,400 as "much larger than" $13,900?

Do you think $266,400 will buy a house?

Do you think $13,900 will buy a house?

I understand that you can divide $266,400 over any interval that's convenient, but I don't see how that relates to my point or the facts.

The proportion of the population that will pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation will never be 0 unless you can guarantee that it is impossible to make a ransom offer which yields a positive expected valuation to the victim.

In effect this means that refusing to pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation subsidizes outcomes for those that do pay the ransom.