As my comment made the case: it's not a simple addition, it's a trade-off, and I'm saying it should be thought about in those terms. I didn't find that was evident from what you said, I guess the "push back" framing was more negative than I intended.

By having obscurity you lose anther layer of security: public scrutiny. It's harder for security issues to remain if people can see them and point them out, more eyes mean more chances to catch problems.

There is also a cultural component: having to lay out what you are doing publicly means you can't just think "no one will know", and let something slide, which pushes you towards better security practices.

Of course, this doesn't mean obscurity is always going to be the worse choice, there are times it will offer more than it costs and it's particularly evident that in, for example, open source projects, a lot of the time the number of eyes on most code is low enough that "many eyes" is a bit misleading, but I think presenting it as a pure positive is wrong, obscurity has cost, even if you think it's worth it in some cases.

The bigger factor is probably that PCI-e tunnelling at most a ×4 link, while when you plug a GPU in you are generally doing so into a ×16 or at least ×8 slot, and very few GPUs target ×4.

It's normal and reasonable to discover someone who makes bad decisions is running something and decide that makes using it a higher risk for you. Sometimes you don't have a choice, but sometimes you do.

To make an obviously unproven and not universal observation: I feel like it's people who just like the google integration in Chrome and want an excuse to run it, even though they feel like they should use Firefox because it's more compatible with their world view, so they latch onto any issues Firefox has to go "see, they are all the same anyway", and then just repeat vague "Mozilla sucks" stuff.

I think game engine tooling tends to encourage bad code too, lots of game engine make it hard to do everything in code, rather things are special cased through UIs or magic in the engine, which means you often can't use all the normal language features, and have to do things in awkward ways to fit the tooling.

Of course, this varies a lot by engine.

It's weird seeing people just adding a few more "REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY DON'T DO THAT" to the prompt and hoping, to me it's just an unacceptable risk, and any system using these needs to treat the entire LLM as untrusted the second you put any user input into the prompt.

I definitely don't think it's even the likely outcome, but for Linux to get serious traction this is how it has to start: power users but not the traditional developer crowd start actually moving, and in doing so produce the guides, experience, word of mouth, and motivation that normal people need to do so, alongside the institutional support from Valve to actually fix the bugs and issues.

It remains to be seen if a critical mass will find it usable long-term, but if it were to happen, this is how it would look at the start, and Microsoft are certainly doing their best to push people away right now, although I suspect the real winner is more likely to be Apple with the Macbook Neo sucking up more of the lower end.

Come on, this is an absurd comment. Linux has its issues, this is not a serious example of what is keeping normal people from using Linux as a desktop OS. Normal people are not installing the first release of a privacy networking tool that requires you to OK connections.

Just because something benefits a singular party doesn't make it antidemocratic. Expanding the franchise is more democratic, not less. A party being rewarded electorally for doing something good is the system working, not failing.

There are reasonable arguments to be made (in my opinion) that 16 is too young but you aren't making that argument, the one you are making is completely invalid.

No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power. So the question is if it's good policy, and so I argue it is, if someone can be living by themselves, working in the army or as a full-time apprentice, married, and having a child, they should be able to vote.

> When a court challenge loomed, Labour quickly u-turned on the latest round of cancellations. Funny how something can seem sensible one day, and can then be u-turned at the slightest whiff of legal scrutiny.

Yes, it's absolutely bad that the government isn't making sure these things are legal before doing them, just as with the Palestine Action proscription. It's also hardly a sign of it being gerrymandering, why would they bother when it's going to give them basically zero advantage, given it would only achieve getting a council that will have no time to actually do anything? The obvious conclusion is they thought it was a waste of money and effort to hold them, but if you have to fight a legal battle over it, it won't actually save any money or effort as that has a large cost, even if it is legal.

> Can you name a single Conservative hereditary peer that will be given a lifetime peerage in Starmer's reform plan?

BBC reporting as of two days ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o

> The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers.

So it's not specific names as it hasn't been finalised, but 15 of them. I accept I misremembered when I said "all", but the point stands: not gerrymandering.

They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those areas are being redrawn and would have to have fresh elections almost immediately, making the results meaningless.

They also gave all the conservative hereditary peers lifetime peerages so they will keep their seats.

Your framing of all three of these is obviously intended to mislead.