Curufinwe_wins

Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap.
 
Everything becomes cable.

Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap.
 
Everything becomes cable.

On a more serious note than my last post: YouTube lets their main competitors advertise on their platform. I couldn't watch a video on the YouTube app a few months ago without getting a pre-roll for TikTok. They don't give the tiniest little toot of a shart about Louis talking up his hobby project. 

Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap.
 
Everything becomes cable.

Unless Louis is being extremely unreasonably combative, I doubt very much youtube cares enough to 'cancel him'. Floatplane exists, Nebula exists, etc etc. If anything it just is starting to suck having more and more random flipping places to find crap.
 
Everything becomes cable.

I feel this is a bit unfair to say, because the "actual definition" of the word in science is not being neutral or even claiming uncertainty as was argued on previous pages and more initially doubting claims that go against (well) established knowledge unless there is solid enough proof. That does not mean automatically rejecting it, but definitely doubting proportional to the extraordinarity of the claim. In an extraordinary case like this, where it would be a world first, that does basically boil down to "false unless proven true".
Not believing the claim of a room temp superconductor being found when crucial behaviour was not unambiguously observed and there were other less exotic explanations was in line with being sceptical. I think disbelief played an important role in getting this as much attention as it did.

A new paper is out.
[2308.03110] Ferromagnetic half levitation of LK-99-like synthetic samples (arxiv.org) 

 
Discussion:
 
 Well folks there we have it.  Per very credible research from Univ of Beijing, LK99 is NOT an RTSC.  Cross confirmation from an American lab will happen.  Sadly this is the case.  I wish it was not

Fundamentally, no. It is incorrect rational thought to have no priors (to be perfectly neutral).
 
Our strength as rationalists is tied to our ability to be more confused by fiction than reality. If you accept all things as neutrally possible, that is indicating a lack of any knowledge.
 
Example, if someone claims to have discovered a way to (truly) violate thermodynamics in any macro sense, one should strongly suggest they are mistaken. The body of evidence is absolutely unfathombly large that such things are as impossible as anything possibly could be. Your prior should be ironclad against acceptance beyond anything you believe to be true in the world.
 
Now, that doesn't inherently mean you won't listen to the evidence. But rationality absolutely does **not** require that neutrality is the default condition. Prior knowledge should be leveraged.
 

@LAwLz extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The sheer history  of non-existence and fraudlent claim rates of HT superconductors definitely should make the prior of any well-attuned baysean rationalist default to 'this is almost certainly not true' and require strong evidence to sway.
 
With that being said, it seems like we are getting close to that. A lot of recent Chinese reports are positive, though even in replication, there is strong incentive to be part of confirming the 'new world order'. Evidence is piling that it is certainly something... and will continue to develop overtime.
 
But I'm not a super conductor expert, so my default should be less confident in right or wrong than someone who is, and I require less evidence to sway my suitably weaker prior.

@LAwLz extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The sheer history  of non-existence and fraudlent claim rates of HT superconductors definitely should make the prior of any well-attuned baysean rationalist default to 'this is almost certainly not true' and require strong evidence to sway.
 
With that being said, it seems like we are getting close to that. A lot of recent Chinese reports are positive, though even in replication, there is strong incentive to be part of confirming the 'new world order'. Evidence is piling that it is certainly something... and will continue to develop overtime.
 
But I'm not a super conductor expert, so my default should be less confident in right or wrong than someone who is, and I require less evidence to sway my suitably weaker prior.

The really cool part of this discovery is that the manufacturing process laid out is hilariously easy, fast, and straightforward. And the claimed conditions are sooo high that one of the supposed demos is literally a video of a guy pushing a crystal on a magnet.
 
Within the next two weeks, we'll know if this is utter fraud or the start of a new era.
 
---
Yes I know it isn't necessarily immediately viable, but proving existence at all would be instant Nobel and a huge achievement for humanity.

Gonna have to play the "citation needed" card on that one. EVGA seems to be a privately held company, which doesn't preclude nvidia owning a share, but it wouldn't be open market. In a quick search I've been unable to turn up any references to such an arrangement.

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

I'm sorry, what world do you live on here? <removed> Please pull some random ass throwaway comment from an author of a non-relevant script that does nothing other than add some flipping weird fancy letters up front. Or the completely unsubstantiated unresearched throwaway blog post. You have to be able to find better supporting arguments, right?
 
 And god forbid, look at those ad examples shown on the webpages. They are definitely demonstrating 'ads for discovery' alright.
 
I have to ask, were you using the internet pre-adblock (or shit, just using school/work computers where often adblock wasn't installable)? Because let me just say, ads are a lot... less likely to be malware or inappropriate than they were in 2005, let alone 2000. Used to be an extremely common issue that if you click on that addicting games ad on accident, you are spending the next 10 minutes fighting ad popups and autoinstallers, and more than once having to wipe the computer from malware that got installed. UAC didn't come around because Microsoft just wanted to intentionally piss people off. It came around because the internet was a cesspool (and it still is in the deep corners, but the general standard has improved sooo much). 
 
I don't think I saw a single content relevant ad on the internet in my entire life prior to 2010, certainly I had never seen on on youtube ffs. For a while there, the *only* ads you saw on websites were for porn or malware. These days most reputable sites are only mildly infuriating, not dangerous.
 
There is no golden age to fall back on.
 
-
I do apologize for the ad hominems, but this is just a false reality, with no substantiation, that even if substantiated, wouldn't bypass the arguments noted about impairing basic function of websites or protecting users. And prescribing an absolute like 'always spite first' is just laughable. Honestly. 

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

I'm sorry, what world do you live on here? <removed> Please pull some random ass throwaway comment from an author of a non-relevant script that does nothing other than add some flipping weird fancy letters up front. Or the completely unsubstantiated unresearched throwaway blog post. You have to be able to find better supporting arguments, right?
 
 And god forbid, look at those ad examples shown on the webpages. They are definitely demonstrating 'ads for discovery' alright.
 
I have to ask, were you using the internet pre-adblock (or shit, just using school/work computers where often adblock wasn't installable)? Because let me just say, ads are a lot... less likely to be malware or inappropriate than they were in 2005, let alone 2000. Used to be an extremely common issue that if you click on that addicting games ad on accident, you are spending the next 10 minutes fighting ad popups and autoinstallers, and more than once having to wipe the computer from malware that got installed. UAC didn't come around because Microsoft just wanted to intentionally piss people off. It came around because the internet was a cesspool (and it still is in the deep corners, but the general standard has improved sooo much). 
 
I don't think I saw a single content relevant ad on the internet in my entire life prior to 2010, certainly I had never seen on on youtube ffs. For a while there, the *only* ads you saw on websites were for porn or malware. These days most reputable sites are only mildly infuriating, not dangerous.
 
There is no golden age to fall back on.
 
-
I do apologize for the ad hominems, but this is just a false reality, with no substantiation, that even if substantiated, wouldn't bypass the arguments noted about impairing basic function of websites or protecting users. And prescribing an absolute like 'always spite first' is just laughable. Honestly. 

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

Just to be clear. This is stuff that even the most basic research would have told you.
 
First adblocking extention available, Internet Fast Forward was created and administered by a company selling privacy software to other companies to help prevent government spying amongst other things. This is from the one of the founders:
 
https://www.theregister.com/2021/07/08/interview_gene_hoffman/
 
And for Adblock itself (ADP is the one that is pushing the edge of extortion there): 
https://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-the-inventor-of-the-ad-blocker-henrik-aasted-srensen-2015-7
 
 
------
 
Some other older reputable discussion points (since I have noted that I think the problem is actually less severe today than 10-20 years ago), from cisco itself
https://www.pcmag.com/news/online-advertising-more-likely-to-spread-malware-than-porn
 

It's a bug in the quoting system, i quoted Kisai, you never said what i quoted yet it says you said that.

There have also been cases where actual harmful code have been executed through ads. Maybe not on YouTube but on fairly large and trusted websites. 
I think it even happened on this forum at one point but I might be misremembering. 
 
And besides, we all sooner or later, some more often than others, will open websites that may not be the most secure and trusted.

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

3rd video after i turned off adblocker.

 
*turn it back on*

This is just false. It isn't even remotely worth pretending to be true, and is intellectually dishonest. If you live in the US, it is literally impossible that you have not seen malicious political advertising on youtube. Or a more directly malicious ad in general. Google routinely has malvertising get through its ad systems, so don't give me that BS line; they also have suffered more than a few failures to catch pornographic ads from going through despite that being supposedly against policy. Even more directly than that, more than once in the last decade, youtube suffered a large breach of literal malware ads directly on popular content. See 2014 Sweet Orange malware, which hit almost exclusively US users.
 
Pretending that many reputable sites, whose content is indeed worth existing, function consistently and properly without adblocking is ridiculous. Even BBC, which barely has ads at all breaks more than once a week for me with loading failures or banner ads that prevent accessing the content at all (due to not resizing properly). Or ads which autoplay audio and video content etc etc. There are many extremely valid reasons to use adblock by default and only permit certain sites, notably that the people buying ad slots and pushing for more and more ads content (those same ads that are intrusive and/or even interface breaking being by far the most profitable) don't give a shit about the user experience. Youtube doesn't care either, more engagement is good for buisness, even if it is being pissed off or negative experiences due to shitty ads. 
 
And I don't blame them for not caring. They exist to make a profit, and get as much money as possible with as little effort as possible (as does every company, I'm not singling them out), and if their value matrix says they'd rather make a site non-functional or spread harmful content than control their greed, I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms doing everything in my power to A bypass those constraints and B make the platform actually worth using for me.
 
PS: I pay for premium, and still use adblock. Spite has nothing to do with it.
 

Biggest reason why Intel's naming hasn't been a huge historic issue is that ARK (well and its current successor) is ludicrously comprehensive and fantastic. My only major complaint is that Intel still allows companies to get away with not telling consumers upfront the specific sku on prebuilts or laptops with the explicit intent to deceive on what the actual product performance is. Ultra is stupid and pointless, but I don't think a 5 digit number matters.
 
 
AMD however seems to love to obfuscate everything right now, instead of just owning up to their shitty generational naming.