Apologies if this is obvious - is this ISA specific, or does it sit upon cross platform libs?
I ask because I'm *very* interested in this, but am working on ARM
Edit - just to be clear why I'm interested. For me it matters not if Ruby is slow, until it does, which is usually a very specific and obvious piece of code.
How can you do ISA-agnostic JIT unless you implement a separate backend for each ISA? I.e. is it possible to write a JIT in a generic way such that it'll work for a class of ISAs?
It's x86-64 specific right now. I'm interested in adding ARM support so I'll do that at some point in the future. My desktop is x86-64 and our production machines are as well, which is why I started with it.
For sure. Although i think most people with enough radio knowledge to even go down this path also know how trivial it is to track down the source of interference, even for an amateur with cost-next-to-nothing gear.
In this case the device was operating for months (blocking emergency frequencies?!?!) before they bothered to look for the source. Something on a timer would be much harder to discover due to the intermittent nature.
There was a story a couple of days/weeks ago on here (sorry I can't find the link) where someone had been phishing their way into iCloud accounts and downloading all the photos from them. Despite making absolutely 0 effort to cover their tracks (not even a VPN),this went on for a very long time before they were caught.
Just because the knowledge is there and there's a paper trail doesn't mean anyone will _actually_ put the pieces together
This made me think of the movie, “Pump up the Volume,” where Christian Slater has a pirate radio station and at one point he moves all his gear into a moving van to avoid detection.
The UK had loads of these at one point, but the really enduring one is Radio Caroline. They were broadcasting from international waters right up until the early '90s when the British government gave itself extraterritorial powers over foreign-flagged ships in international waters (!) in order to forcibly close down offshore broadcasters.
Radio Caroline are still around though, they've actually done pretty well recently with fundraisers. Their old pirate ship is still used for broadcasting but these days instead of using the old valve transmitters aboard they use 4G to relay their signal to (ironically enough) an old BBC World Service site which is then broadcast on 648 kHz with a much more modern unit. They've just been licensed to turn up the power considerably too so they'll be receivable in much more of the UK and northern Europe than they are currently soon.
It's kind of interesting to see new AM stations popping up in what's otherwise a dying band. I've always thought it's a bit short-sighted to get rid of AM because in a real national "shit hits the fan" scenario where power and networking are heavily affected it's an efficient way to reach lots of people. You can even build an AM demodulator out of a razor blade and a pencil if you're in proper trouble! I expect by the end of the decade the only things left on AM will be enthusiasts like Radio Caroline and hobbyist pirates (there's quite a few of these in the Netherlands and Greece).
there was a story a while back about someone being caught with a signal jammer in his van, because he was sick of people being on the phone while driving
Surely this would cause things to be worse as everyone in proximity to this van would start looking down at their phones to figure out why they stopped working
Guanajuato city, Mexico. I lived there for a while, <$1k no problem. Not humid, perfect climate. Adorable place. I ended up there because I did some analysis of climate data for all of Mexico and it came out on top.
Edit: I lived there 5 years ago and USD$1k per month would have been plenty, but a nomad website I just looked up lists it at $1250. I'm surprised by that, I think you would be fine. In fact I know people who live there who don't earn anything near $15k USD per year.
I really want this to be real and rolled out, but I feel like even though we've been reading about this for years there is a (or a few) big show stoppers which no one is talking about. I hope that's not the case but I get the feeling that there are major issues which might make it implausible to do this.
It just seems like if it was that simple then governments would be pouring billions - no TRILLIONS - of research dollars into this. Cattle are such a big part of greenhouse emissions that if this really had legs without some underlying problem it would be funded like a war effort.
> Cattle are such a big part of greenhouse emissions that if this really had legs without some underlying problem it would be funded like a war effort.
According to a brief search, cattle represent about 3.3% of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is 29%, electricity is 25%.
Seems to me better logistics (not transporting stuff that needn't be transported) and better electricity generation is worth more trillions than cows burping.
3.3% of greenhouse emissions seems too low. Global livestock overall may contribute to about 14% of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. There are also other forms of pollution including farm runoff (ocean dead zones , zoonotic disease), land use (forest destruction), soil degradation, etc.
My source only looked at the US so numbers differ from global[0]. Your source also says 14.5% is all livestock, of which 9.4% is cattle (so about 3x globally compared to the US).
There are of course other forms of pollution, a big one we could easily tackle I think is water pollution by the textile industry [1]. So much clothing today is of garbage quality and completely unmendable (the fabric is too thin to be repaired ):, I tried).
Random thought experiment - how much should the global 'fund' be to attack greenhouse gas emissions. Not that it should be spent in proportion to % of total emissions, but I wonder what 3.3% of that number would be.
Say you spent 1T on cows, and spent it proportionally. That's a 30T fund overall. So around half from memory of what the US spent on the post 9/11 wars.
It would also not supplant grain, which is really what causes cows to emmit so many greenhouses gases. If you ate the grain that cows eat you would have terrible gas too. Grain is intended as a supplement to grass as it is loaded with different nutrients, salt, etc., but it also makes cows grow faster and produce more milk and so it is a competitive advantage for a farmer to feed more than is really required for the cows to be healthy.
Seaweed may be better than grass in regards to gas emissions, but probably not 99 percent better. However, grass or seaweed alone won’t let cows get fat enough fast enough. Time is money and it is a commodity market unless you specifically target the organic, non-GMO, grass-fed crowd, which, while growing, is still a niche market that adds a bunch of complications.
On some farms, grain only supplements the grass diet, but on many beef cattle farms a larger portion of their diet is grain so they grow and fatten up more quickly. Dairy cows often fair a bit better in this regard, although the calorically rich diet of grain is also good for increasing milk production, so they are fed a good bit of grain also.
The grain does serve a health purpose for cattle, it is just often probably given in excess of what would be required for optimal cow health.
UBI + health (and other calamity) insurance for all.
A strong public mental health system.
Prescription drugs of every kind, heroin, meth, whatever. With the right counselling and support attached.
I might be an idiot but pretty sure most crime will just go away, then we can spend proper resources to help and support (and punish when needed) the few offenders who really struggle to stay within the rules of society.
There are a few genuinely 'bad people' out there. But it's vanishingly small. Most people do bad things because of their circumstances. Lets fix the root cause then we can get rid of most of the cops (i.e. the shit ones), & most of the jails.
I don't particularly want to start a debate here. I know it's not all so simple. Just dreaming.
I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a debate.
Rehabilitation is one of those code words that polls well, but I am skeptical it exists. In reality it usually just means 'addiction treatment' (which seldom works) and there isnt really a good analogy for crimes that are not drug related. Just for my own clarity, what exactly constitues rehabilitation for eg. someone who embezzles?
The second issue is that it seems to focus on preventing additional crime, but punishment is about preventing crime before it happens. Just proving 'I would never do it again' isn't really the point, we want to prevent crimes from ever happening.
Your theory seems to be that most people are inherently good and wouldn't do crime just because if their nature. I think that is fundamentally wrong, and I can prove it.
All you need to do is examine situations in which people were suddenly put in situations where they knew they were unlikely to receive punishment: and crime explodes.
There were millions of rapes commited by soldiers against German women during the occupation following world war 2. My guess is most of the perpetrators never raped again--they went home and were otherwise normal citizens. Had they not been given the opportunity to get away with it, they would not have done it.
I sort if see this akin to the Milgram experiment. You probably think you wouldn't shock the man--and maybe you wouldn't--but our studies suggest most people would.
I don't disagree with our premise against people being inherently good. I personally don't think that a universal basic income will solve all the problems that its proponents think it will solve.
But I don't think your example about rape in occupied Germany is a great example. The citizens of the Soviet Union suffered greatly, and it is estimated that about 26 million of them died during WW2. I have no doubt that the minds of those soldiers were filled with thoughts of rage and revenge, and probably felt that the perpetrators of the war somehow deserved it.
I think we should absolutely do all of that, for more reasons than just reducing crime.
Specifically talking about crime though, I think it becomes diminishing returns. Some countries in Western Europe are not a million miles from that ideal and still have a non-negligible crime rate and homelessness rate.
Mental health support is probably the biggest thing missing, at least in part because we (as a planet) are quite bad at treating it. I expect (and hope) that that's the area that will have the biggest advances in medical treatment over the next couple of decades.
Plus there's organized crime, white-collar crime, etc; you could get just about enough to keep your head above water, yes, but what if you could become rich instead?
Health insurance for all? Agree. I’m not sold on the economics of UBI.
IMO something that I think would make a huge difference while also being realistically achievable is criminal justice reform. We cannot let prisons continue being factories for drug addicts and career criminals. There must surely be a better way than this.
> We cannot let prisons continue being factories for drug addicts and career criminals
or literal factories.
prison labor is not always forced, but always cheap labor and some of it even dangerous. imagine getting paid 2$ a day to fight CA's wildfires
UBI no one knows. Being sold or otherwise doesn't matter. Small trials here and there aren't much use. We need a country with balls to try it like Portugal did with drug policy.
So yea, I'm not sold either. No one really is until we get the hard truth. Nothing more complex (and chaotic) than society and it's economy. Good luck modelling and predicting that reliably ha!
Whilst the detractors of UBI like to paint it as automatically impossible, like breaking some fundamental law of nature, I bet the same people would have said the same things about the Covid benefit schemes. In my country people could be furloughed by their employer on 80% of their salary... and somehow we paid for it ok.
Most people's jobs are utterly pointless. Yet still, by doing these jobs the workers get money with which they can buy their portion of resources. Let's just do the same thing without the pointless and wasteful busy work.
Maybe the only thing stopping us is our cultural values dating back to the industrial revolution when workers were indoctrinated with the idea of work as virtuous.
I mostly agree with this. When I worked in the federal government, a bunch of colleagues there used to jest that it was "middle class welfare". The point being, that a huge portion of the white collar federal employees just exist to fill a billet. The number of free loaders was insane. In my experience, most operations were done by a few, and much of the extra work that was done really didn't need to happen (example: making useless one time spreadsheets with 10 rows and 4 columns filled with data that expires in the short term, embed into powerpoint, make powerpoint look pretty, email it to someone)
The most vocal detractors, yeah. But that's true for anything. The most vocal people are the ones that draw a hard line and refuse to budge, often choosing to scream people down instead of using actual logic or science.
That doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they aren't even attempting to put thought into it, just emotion.
You can't discount something based on it's most vocal proponents or opponents.
UBI would be easily affordable if it was low enough. I don't know about the US but in the UK the progressive tax system means you don't pay any tax on the first £12,500. Scrap that and give it back as UBI instead then it would add up. The trouble is I don't think this is what the proponents have in mind.
The government needs to pay for this.
The taxes collected come from people.
So a fraction of the people have to pay for UBI.
If we assume full automation and no private property, then the machines work for us now. They don't complain like Ben Shapiro that paying for the poor with your wealth/income is "stealing". Communism is a good idea on paper, but humans in general are greedy and envious. If we had unlimited resources, the machines in such a scenario could produce everything for each greedy individual. However, our resources are limited, and one greedy person wants more than the other. That's actually the main issue here. People don't want to put up with getting the same thing as everyone else. (I would put up with it, though, but I am the minority here.)
Then there is Europe or social democracies. There is actually a limited form of UBI called "public assistance". You don't have to pay anything back and it is only for those who can't support themselves.
I hope there is a flaw in my thinking here. It would make my day if you would enlighten me with your wisdom. :)
PS: I couldn't resist sharing a good parody on Ben Shapiro's character: https://youtu.be/wPgwwZ8ih3k
Sorry HN, I know this is somewhat silly from me, but it is too funny. :D
Edit: For the person who downvoted my comment here. Care to share on why you did this? Please enlighten me. I don't care about karma points. I care about why you think that I am wrong.
Was my first sentence the offender? I meant it in this way: For UBI, the government needs to ...
Anyhow, tell me why I am wrong and not just downvote it and leave. Explain, please! Thank you!
> People don't want to put up with getting the same thing as everyone else.
I don't think that's true for most people. Rather, people don't want to expend energy when they can get away with not doing it. Working is hard, and if you're taken care off if you don't, then a sizable part of the population won't.
I hope so. Again, I wouldn't complain about it, but there are people like Ben Shapiro, you know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People like Ben then perhaps need to put up with it if the majority decides so. I just don't want to imagine his rage and anger...
Okay, the person who disliked my comment refused to answer why he did it.
I can only guess why he did it. I suspect it is because of my silly remarks in general.
Anyhow, it would be still better if you could provide me a reason, so I can get better next time. I cannot read minds you know, unknown downvoter whoever you are.
Next time I will avoid being silly or making silly remarks. If this was even the offender?
(However, my comment above was not entirely silly. A small part of it was.)
Edit:
Okay, I got an answer. Apparently it was because my argument was flawed. Thank you! :)
Ideally, the funds don't primarily come from other people's income, they come from corporate wealth and income (currently severely undertaxed), taxes on natural resource use (currently severely undertaxed), taxes on things we don't want like carbon emissions and other pollution (currently severely undertaxed) taxes on nonrenewable limited resources like radio spectrum usage or land usage (currently not taxed at all or nowhere near proportional to value most places), and direct wealth generation from nation-level investments (sovereign funds, resource funds). The "taxes come from people" is a common way to paint UBI as a self-defeating cycle of redistribution, but that's not how it is. Human income is a dropping fraction of total income, and human wealth is a dropping fraction of total wealth.
Taxes on corporations are paid by people. Every dollar taxed from a company is a dollar less the company is worth. For mom and pop companies, it's directly less value they have. For larger private companies, it taxes owners. For large public companies, it taxes everyone with any investment exposure, which is the vast majority of people by retirement time.
It lowers returns on pensions, which is a hidden tax on nearly everyone.
Lower capital in companies causes them to raise prices sometimes, hire less sometimes, fire more quickly in bad times, etc.
Just because you don't see how it taxes you doesn't mean you're not paying.
Thank you for your comment, Kliment. I am currently trying to see my error in thinking and fix it.
> currently severely undertaxed
Is it because companies such as Amazon are good at avoiding taxes?
> they come from corporate wealth and income
Hmm... I think this is what I don't really understand. Aren't corporations owned by a few people? So at the end the owners are paying the taxes? Can companies exist without owners (people)? (They change, I know, but can they exist without people?) I am probably to fixated on people, and perhaps I need to see companies as an own entity.
> taxes on things we don't want like carbon emissions and other pollution
Okay, so somebody and a "company" is also a somebody here, needs to pay for that? (So it is the owner at the end?)
> direct wealth generation from nation-level investments (sovereign funds, resource funds)
Okay, that makes sense. A stock is bought and sold by people, and its value increases and decreases depending on the decisions of people. However, you are right, the government owns that stock. So it belongs to all of us.
Okay, so my question essentially boils down to: Why is the owner of a company like Jeff Bezos irrelevant here? I can see this for the sovereign funds, resource funds part. However, I have trouble with the CEO part. What am I missing here? My understanding of government and taxes is wrong, perhaps. That's why I cannot see it, probably.
Is it possible that UBI is inevitable? Machine learning is just getting started at making many jobs redundant, sooner or later it will explode. Yes, new jobs will be created too, but it's hard to imagine they will be on par with the amount lost. Those new jobs will most likely require a high level of education.
A massive wage gap and extreme poverty seems inevitable without UBI. In my personal utopian vision, I see us transitioning from a working culture to a learning culture, where personal growth is the goal.
I'm with you all the way on drug policy and prison reform. Addiction is an illness, not a crime. There's no such thing as good and evil, just cause and effect.
I certainly appreciate dreaming, but you are missing domestic violence[0], the I want shiny thing effect, rape[1], jalousy murder and all traffic violations, which are probably going to be worse when drugs are more freely available.
Some of that may be solvable by only making UBI availabel to nonfellons, or keep people in prison until we are pretty sure they won't commit any crimes[3]
[0]: alcohol makes this a worse problem, but it is not the only thing that causes it.
[1]: it is almost always easier to hire a prostitute, if this was about sex.
[3]: you will have ended nearly all non serious crimes, meaning that those who do commit crimes will be really bad people.
The man in the article was a political prisoner punished for joining the Black Panthers. It doesnt really have to do with crime unoess you count the crime of abusing the justice system for political purposes.
It's been my experience around the world that about 99% of people are honest for the most part and won't rob or harm you. But... that means there's that 1% who _will_. I think no matter what, that 1% will exist (this is just a gut feeling).
That means in the US alone, there are ~3.3 million people roaming around that will rob, steal, murder, rape, and do other horrible things. At a peak, 2.3 million were in prison so I don't think that number is too far off.
Yes, I understand the complexities of this. Yes, I know many of those people are in prison for drug related offenses. I'm not here to debate any of that, it's a complex issue and I'm generalizing big time.
It's just to point out that, the 1% thing probably has some truth to it based on real data.
>It's just to point out that, the 1% thing probably has some truth to it based on real data.
Quite the opposite.
Rates of violent crime vary by orders of magnitude from one society to the next, and have reduced dramatically over time within most societies in the developed world with no indication that we've reached the bottom.
> It's been my experience around the world that about 99% of people are honest for the most part and won't rob or harm you. But... that means there's that 1% who _will_. I think no matter what, that 1% will exist (this is just a gut feeling).
Your comment ignores the most obvious problems in the system. First this guy had his conviction overturned, he was innocent, and he claims his sentence was politically motivated. Second, this type of solitary confinement is inhumane and unecessary.
Yes, it would be great to improve the quality of life for prospective criminals, but we don't need to set the bar as high as UBI, we could start by having a fair and sympathetic penal system.
> There are a few genuinely 'bad people' out there
Do you want to count the number of violent rapes by year?
Violent premeditated murders?
Lets add violent robbery and assault by people have food and a place to stay, but are looking to level up and buy shiny things?
This is not a circumstance, and there are many 'bad people' out there.
The comment you’re responding to suggests that implementing certain societal changes would dramatically reduce crime. Your reply completely ignores their considerations and offers the status quo, I.e. a world completely lacking the changes they mention, as a supposed counter-argument.
I live in a country with next to no violent premeditated murders, next to no violent robbery. And a LOT of very poor people. But there is a public social safety net which you can't fall below. So no one is ever really desperate.
I understand if you're based in the US why you think this way, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Most of these are mental health issues. ESPECIALLY violent rape. Really every cop will tell you that vast majority of crime is not committed by some cold-blooded, well-planning, career criminals - but by mentally unstable or sick people and/or people suffering from addictions, that do ridiculous things being clearly out of sane mind. Sadly, psychiatry is really in its infancy and its success record at both diagnosis and treatment plain out sucks.
Basically, is there any "rational" reason to be a rapist AT ALL? Especially in today's world which is full of easy to get sex. I think every rapist is mentally not OK.
>Sure, but is it an illness which can be alleviated?
That's exactly my point. There isn't. So we criminalise it instead. It's inhumane and will be most certainly seen by our grandchildren in a way similar as we see chattel slavery today, but it's just simply that we have no other way today.
I agree, there is a problem with this. We've been there before: being gay was considered a sickness and/or a crime in most countries till recently, for example. But, medical science can adapt to changing social norms, it did before, and was hardly ever a blocker here - i can't recall if there was ever a point where medical science or healthcare industry insisted on labelling something a sickness when society or state claimed it wasn't.
My own feeling is that many of these people were not born evil, but their life circumstances as children (e.g. extreme poverty or abuse by family members) set them on a bad trajectory that's quite hard to correct for in adulthood.
I think giving every child a stable home life will go a long way in reducing crime. Of course some people will slip through the cracks. But I'm in agreement with OP that the number is quite small compared to the number of people currently incarcerated.
>Do you want to count the number of violent rapes by year? Violent premeditated murders?
People do keep count of this, and the (per-capita) rate of violent crime has been falling fairly monotonically since at least the end of WW2. Our genetics haven't changed in that time, but circumstances have.
I mean, it depends on what you mean by "violently inclined".
I'm not a sociologist, so I don't know specifically what works and what doesn't, but clearly whatever we've been doing for the last 50 years has led to a smaller percentage of children born with inherently aggressive/antisocial personalities going on to commit violent crimes as an adult.
If you're talking about adults with violent inclinations that have acted on them and committed horrific crimes, then the obvious answer is to segregate them from the rest of society as they're clearly dangerous.
It looks like we're speaking across purposes. I'm not trying to absolve rapists and murderers of blame, nor am I trying to downplay the danger they pose to the rest of us. At the same time, though we should acknowledge that violent crime seems to be a mostly-solvable problem on a population level and simply throwing up your arms and saying "bad people are bad" isn't going to push the stats down.
Some get better, some are disasters waiting to happen.
Source: Norwegians do this. It is not every day it seems but there absolutely are multiple cases each years of people with violent pasts who become violent again given the opportunity.
There are two types of prison sentences here: ordinary and "forvaring" (best translation I could come up with is "detainment") which practically means they get to serve a minimum sentence anyway but won't be released until the specialists consider them reasonably safe. Kind of close to life but with a chance of parole, only the parole is meant to be the rule, not the exception.
For now it seems to work well enough, but if the rate climbs I think they will have to make adjustments.
Having had the nightmare of dealing with the old school satcom companies for offshore sailing (super low bandwidth needs), everything about these guys stands out as being everything they are not.
Glad you're interested, and yep, there's a reason the big text on the homepage says "Satellite communications, done differently". If you have questions or want to follow along check out our Matrix room at #femtostar:matrix.org (https://matrix.to/#/!COEHOXujBzfAHAVzPG:matrix.org?via=matri...).
Oh man how this makes me want to make the jump from normal electronics design into doing a chip.
They might not allow it (no chance of marketplace sales or follow-on volume), but if I were better off I'd drop the $10k or so and do something random just for the experience. Maybe a bunch of different little designs on one IC.
There have been FPGAs in the past which used the logic blocks for routing, including the Xilinx 6200. I think that was also the case for the Atmel AT40K FPGAs, but could be remembering wrong.
In fact, our project for the previous Google shuttle was an FPGA-like device which also routes data using logic cells. Here is an introduction to the idea:
It worked in simulation and the chip is currently scheduled to be shipped to us on September 6. There were 2 or 3 projects that were more conventional FPGAs.
The ICAO airport code as used for navigation. They're different from the IATA 3 letter codes that most passengers know. US airports start with K, European with E (e.g. EF for Europe-France).
Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers, e.g. KJFK for JFK and KSFO for San Francisco. But not always, as in EGLL for London Heathrow which is LHR in passenger codes.
EF is Finland actually. The first letter is region code, and Europe is divided into multiple regions. Northern Europe is E, Southern Europe is mostly L (so France is LF).
Wikipedia has a nice map showing the different boundarys on it's ICAO airport codes page.
> Often for large airports the code is very similar to the IATA code for passengers
This is mostly only the case in the United States, since it has a single-letter K prefix, so they can append the 3-letter IATA code to make a valid 4-letter ICAO code. In the rest of the world the second letter of the ICAO code is used to designate countries, so the 3-letter IATA code cannot be appended.
ICAO-registered U.S. airports in the contiguous 48 states start with a K. Alaskan and Hawaiian airports start with a P and other U.S. territories get other different initial letters depending on their region (e.g. TJ for Puerto Rico or NS for American Samoa).
KAPA is the code for Centennial Airport in Denver. It's likely many US pilots would either know what that is or be trivially able to look it up, non-pilots not so much.
I ask because I'm *very* interested in this, but am working on ARM
Edit - just to be clear why I'm interested. For me it matters not if Ruby is slow, until it does, which is usually a very specific and obvious piece of code.