fluffybucktsnek

Like I have stated elsewhere, the US gov. only cares about accountability towards itself, not towards others. If OpenAI decides to "accidentally" reveal state secrets to foreign agents, the US will come after them.

Sorry for my rudeness earlier. But I'm emphasizing that the accountability that US gov. cares (specially with this prez) is only OpenAI towards the US gov. They don't care about it towards others.

Are you going to make an argument or just spout thought terminating cliches? Do you really think OpenAI, for instance, would be able to cross the current administration without any serious consequences?

We are talking about a ban on Chinese AI on federal agencies. The concern isn't about the general citizen data, but private federal information and secrets, some of which could pertain to critical IT infrastructure. This is absolutely of interest to Chinese companies, but also, primarily, the CCP (or any potential enemy, really).

Restricting national secrets to only in-house software isn't guaranteed to provide better security (you still need to hire security specialists), but is guaranteed to spend resources in hiring sufficiently qualified personnel to maintain said software while ignoring the pool of potentially better qualified teams already hired by national companies. So, an alternative, is to use private contractors with different levels of secret sharing. This kind of choice isn't trivial to make.

You seem to forgetting the bonus side of "The traded goods can be poisoned at any time." If the exfiltrated data is more worth than the repercussions that are going to emerge out of it, then it's absolutely worth it. And this isn't specific to China. China holds a similar perspective to US in this regard, but with foreign services in general (arguably more strict, given it affects the entire populace). You just can't know when a third party will go rogue, do they take a more conservative approach of producing "locally", with private companies they can punish if they go against their interest. The current US government, ironically, is good evidence of this.

Personally, I agree. Still, it's not surprising that the government is choosing the safer option to itself. On itself, it's quite reasonable.

I believe most people complaining about this decision are really just have grievances towards the state of US AI companies rather than the decision itself.

Indeed, but Chinese AI model companiea are harder to held accountable by the US than US companies, so there's some sense for the US to prefer national models over international ones.

What I think they are trying to tell you is that there isn't a single sanctioned way of doing modern accelerated rendering. One could argue there was when GPUs were less flexible and had a fixed pipeline, but modern day GPUs are absurdly versatile, and just as capable of handling any form of rendering that had to be done mainly in the CPU, either through compute shaders, or by creatively using the raytracing or rasterization pipelines. There have been some talks about ditching the traditional pipelines model altogether and moving towards an all computer shader + intrinsics model for modern APIs, inspired by CUDA, even. That's how flexible they've become.

In Quake's case, it uses rasterization. Modern GPUs' rasterization pipeline are extremely configurable, not even needing triangles as immediate inputs anymore.

Doesn't Duke3D use the same rendering method as Doom? While there's no specific acceleration for column-based rendering, compute shaders can replicate the same behavior, but in parallel.

Modern GPUs can handle, from raymarched fractals, to raytraced voxels, to rasterized PS1-inspired scenes, etc. It's not like styles are lacking. If anything, GPUs have provided opportunities for more weird combinations by making other techniques viable as well. Contrast that to past, where techniques were cutoff by hardware limitations, resulting in similar ones being used to achieve the same results (both Doom and Duke3d use column-based rendering, for instance).

Are we doubting the levels of stupidity in US's current administration?

The RIAA is indeed quite bad, regardless of Musk. They only exist to further make of copyright a dystopian nightmare.

I guess some people love DRM and further losing control over our owned devices.

*sucks for the rest of the body. I'm sure the cancer itself is pretty "happy".

Internet Archive's traffic may not matter to you, but that's the main topic of this discussion, regardless of what you care or use website archival tools for.

Given that the root of the discussion is about Internet Archive being hit with huge traffic and not the functionalities provided by Wayback Machine, it very much is a distinction with a difference.

Accusations of fascism are rarely made in good faith either. As I pointed out in response to @undeveloped, Merrian-Webster's definition doesn't seem applicable to DHH.