this is exactly, and i cannot stress enough just how exactly, the plot of “Don’t look up”

i mean you weren’t actually off on the altered carbon, it just isn’t described in as much detail, but is effectively the same thing ;)

Thirteen, also by richard morgan, features similar themes as well!

this is not true.

it entirely depends on the specific application.

there is no OS-level, standardized, dynamic allocation of RAM (definitely not on windows, i assume it’s the same for OSX).

this is because most programming languages handle RAM allocation within the individual program, so the OS can’t allocate RAM however it wants.

the OS could put processes to “sleep”, but that’s basically just the previously mentioned swap memory and leads to HD degradation and poor performance/hiccups, which is why it’s not used much…

so, no.

RAM is usually NOT dynamically allocated by the OS.

it CAN be dynamically allocated by individual programs, IF they are written in a way that supports dynamic allocation of RAM, which some languages do well, others not so much…

it’s certainly not universally true.

also, what you describe when saying:

Any modern OS will allocate RAM as necessary. If another application needs, it will allocate some to it.

…is literally swap. that’s exactly what the previous user said.

and swap is not the same as “allocating RAM when a program needs it”, instead it’s the OS going “oh shit! I’m out of RAM and need more NOW, or I’m going to crash! better be safe and steal some memory from disk!”

what happens is:

the OS runs out of RAM and needs more, so it marks a portion of the next best HD as swap-RAM and starts using that instead.

HDs are not built for this use case, so whichever processes use the swap space become slooooooow and responsiveness suffers greatly.

on top of that, memory of any kind is built for a certain amount of read/write operations. this is also considered the “lifespan” of a memory component.

RAM is built for a LOT of (very fast) R/W operations.

hard drives are NOT built for that.

RAM has at least an order of magnitude more R/W ops going on than a hard drive, so when a computer uses swap excessively, instead of as very last resort as intended, it leads to a vastly shortened lifespan of the disk.

for an example of a VERY stupid, VERY poor implementation of this behavior, look up the apple M1’s rapid SSD degradation.

short summary:

apple only put 8GB of RAM into the first gen M1’s, which made the OS use swap memory almost continuously, which wore out the hard drive MUCH faster than expected.

…and since the HD is soldered onto the Mainboard, that completely bricks the device in about half a year/year, depending on usage.

TL;DR: you’re categorically and objectively wrong about this. sorry :/

hope you found this explanation helpful tho!

and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.

your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.

i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;

or B: the theory isn’t wrong after all.

you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)

so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be wrong irrelevant.

or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

you can’t have it both ways, but you’re sure trying to.

you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.

otherwise you’ve just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic…

your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior…

it uses the term “arousal”, which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.

provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.

not necessarily, but it can be a good idea to have a distributed, tamper proof ledger of transactions.

that way anyone can provide proof for basically anything to do with the service: payment, drive, location, etc.

it might also have advantages from a security perspective for riders and drivers.

there are advantages, they’re not entirely necessary, but they may well be the best option for a distributed network (i.e.: no central server infrastructure, at least not beyond some simple software repository for downloads/updates)

+1 for everything: literally saves my sanity

so you’re basically saying it talked itself squarely into uncanny valley?

i honestly didn’t consider that would be an issue for LLMs, but in hindsight…yeah, that’s gonna be a problem…

there’s probably already a tamperMonkey script out there, check greasyFork or something

actually, the law leaves remarkably little room for interpretation in this case.

here’s the law in full, emphasis mine:

Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) § 202a Ausspähen von Daten (1) Wer unbefugt sich oder einem anderen Zugang zu Daten, die nicht für ihn bestimmt und die gegen unberechtigten Zugang besonders gesichert sind, unter Überwindung der Zugangssicherung verschafft, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft. (2) Daten im Sinne des Absatzes 1 sind nur solche, die elektronisch, magnetisch oder sonst nicht unmittelbar wahrnehmbar gespeichert sind oder übermittelt werden.

the text is crystal clear, that security measures need to be “overcome” in order for a crime to have been committed.

it is also obvious that cleartext passwords are NOT a “security measure” in any sense of the word, but especially in this case, where the law specifically says that the data in question has to have been “specially secured”. this was not the case, as evident by the fact that the defendant had easy access to the data in question.

this is blatant misuse of the law.

the data law makes no attempt to take into account the intent of the person, quite differently from when it comes to physical theft, which is immediately and obviously ridiculous.

you mentioned snooping around in a strangers car, and that’s a good comparison!

you know what you definitely couldn’t be charged with in the example you gave? breaking and entering!

because breaking and entering requires (in germany at least) that you gained access through illegal means (i.e.: literally broke in, as opposed to finding the key already in the lock).

but that’s essentially what is happening in this case, and that is what’s wrong with this case!

most people agree he shouldn’t have tried to enter the PW.

what has large parts of the professional IT world up in arms is the way the law was applied, not that there was a violation of the law. (though most in IT, like i am, think this sort of “hacking” shouldn’t be punishable, if it is solely for the purpose of finding and reporting vulnerabilities, which makes a lot of sense)

actually, that’s not what the law says.

the law says that “overcoming” security measures is a crime. nothing was “overcome”.

plaintext is simply not a “security measure” and the law was applied wrong.

there may have been some form of infringement in regards to privacy or sensitive data or whatever, but it definitely wasn’t “hacking” of any kind.

just like it isn’t “hacking” to browse someone’s computer files when they leave a device unlocked and accessible to anyone. invasion of privacy? sure. but not hacking.

and the law as written (§202a StGB) definitely states that security measures have to be circumvented in order to be applied.

that’s the problem with the case!

not that the guy overstepped his bounds, but that the law was applied blatantly wrong and no due diligence was used in determining the outcome of the case.

bit of a problem here:

if batteries are kept in rotation until they die… you’ll most likely experience one dying on you. probably multiple times during your life.

the rest holds up just…how would you avoid a battery dying on you, if you’re still using the same system? you’re not getting a new battery every time you swap, you get an old battery that’s been sitting in the station recharging.

it’s gonna die on someone, might as well happen to you…

ah, thanks!

that’s good to know!

you lose cross-device sync, don’t you?

that alone is kind of a big deal…

that’s not true in the EU.

the reason those cookie banners are everywhere, for example, is because the EU requires explicit consent for a lot of things that used to be covered by ToS.

simply putting clauses into your ToS doesn’t shield the company from legal action at all.

regardless of what’s written in the ToS, final say over what is and isn’t legal lies with local authorities, not YouTube.

TOS are neither the law, nor are they vetted for legality by anyone working in law enforcement.

TOS very often contain straight up illegal clauses; they are largely meaningless.