Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne is a classic OS textbook. Andrew Tanenbaum has some OS books too. I really liked his OS Design and Implementation book but I’m pretty sure that one is super outdated by now. I have not read his newer one but it is called Modern Operating Systens iirc.

Given that music boxes are very very old it is plausible that beethoven could have made a remark sharing his opinion on this exact issue. I don’t mean to agree/disagree with your point, I just find that kind of interesting.

You’re getting downvoted but you are right. Stuff like this is a super cool example of exactly the type of thing you are talking about imo.

There’s a lot of AI generated art that sucks. But that does not imply that in skilled hands an artist can’t use those tools in creative/interesting ways.

Arguably a lot of these tools are designed specifically to reduce the effort a human has to put in to create the art they want to make too.

On the bright side, you are now the proud owner of a hip designer bean plate.

If you have a fixed collection of processes to run on a single processor and unlimited time to schedule them in, you can always brute force all permutations of the processes and then pick whichever permutation maximizes and/or minimizes whatever property you like. The problem with this approach is that it has awful time complexity.

Edit: There’s probably other subtle issues that can arise, like I/O interrupts and other weird events fwiw.

Machine learning techniques are often thought of as fancy function approximation tools (i.e. for regression and classification problems). They are tools that receive a set of values and spit out some discrete or possibly continuous prediction value.

One use case is that there are a lot of really hard+important problems within CS that we can’t solve efficiently exactly (lookup TSP, SOP, SAT and so on) but that we can solve using heuristics or approximations in reasonable time. Often the accuracy of the heuristic even determines the efficiency of our solution.

Additionally, sometimes we want predictions for other reasons. For example, software that relies on user preference, that predicts home values, that predicts the safety of an engineering plan, that predicts the likelihood that a person has cancer, that predicts the likelihood that an object in a video frame is a human etc.

These tools have legitamite and important use cases it’s just that a lot of the hype now is centered around the dumbest possible uses and a bunch of idiots trying to make money regardless of any associated ethical concerns or consequences.

People talk a lot about stackoverflow for figuring out bugs and miscellaneous coding questions but the whole stackexchange project has a lot of other very excellent websites.

These are not mutually exclusive. Believe in yourself.

This cat really has a Milo look to him. Good name choice. Cute cat.

Helping "bad people"? There's nothing inherently more bad about Palestinians than any other nationality.

If you go see an independent mental health professional aren’t there only two outcomes?

1. They confirm you are as mentally fit as you think you are and you go on with your life (possibly with more resources than you previously had if your mental health really does take a dive).

2. They identify something that is actually wrong with your mental health and help you fix or learn to cope with the issue.

I’m not seeing the downside here. Who cares if it’s coming from some shady government boogeyman or some random stranger?

If you’re talking about having family photos pirated, there’s a privacy issue, not a property issue.

It’s pretty clear that I’m talking about more than just family photos. It’s also pretty clear that what I’m saying is that privacy problems are one of possibly many issues with copying data without permission. My actual point here from the start has been that it’s not always ethical to copy other people’s data without permission.

Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that’s on you, but you’ll be yapping in the void as that isn’t what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.

All of the types of media and data I’m talking about are distributable in a colloquial sense. This conversation is about the fact that copying data without permission isn’t always ethical. The data we’re talking about here absolutely includes secrets, private documents and so on.

As for the term of taking, it’s clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn’t mean the same as taking a shit either,

I don’t think that’s what’s happening. I’m talking about the ethics of copying data. Perhaps sometimes copying data can be considered theft, but whether or not copying data is theft, has nothing to do with my point. A thing being called theft doesn’t make that thing morally wrong or right. The term theft itself has little to do with the actual issue we’re talking about.

Also, I’ve never actually claimed piracy is theft. I’m also not claiming piracy is morally wrong, or even that theft is inherently morally wrong for that matter (a person can be justified in stealing in some cases).

it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.

Lets assume you’re right and that literally everybody in the world uses these words the way you do (they don’t). I don’t think arguing “but that word means…” makes a very good argument against the fact that copying data from other people just isn’t always morally right. The fact that you don’t like how I use certain words is just not a good argument against what I’m saying. If you understand what I mean and you disagree with what I’m saying, then why not argue against my point instead of complaining about the fact that you don’t like HOW I use certain words? If you understand what I’m saying and you agree that sometimes it’s wrong to copy other peoples data without permission, then why are we still discussing this?

I’m imposing that property on it because for the overwhelming majority of media that is absolutely the case.

I don’t see why this is such a necessary property of media? Arguably there could be more media inside peoples private homes and hard-drives that is not for sale than media that is for sale. On top of that, this kind of thing depends on how we define media, we can take more or less inclusive definitions of this term.

It should also be clear that the kinds of things that I’m talking about in my original post refers to more than just movies, music, games and software (despite me using “media” as a convenient example in my previous post).

If it’s for sale it’s something you do not mind other people seeing. My documents I do not sell because I don’t want people seeing it. If I were to sell them, clearly I don’t mind people seeing it.

I don’t agree. I’d bet a lot of people are willing to sell plenty of ordinarily private things given a high enough price. I don’t think the notion that something is for sale all of a sudden makes that thing magically not private? When you sell something you don’t always make the thing you’re selling available to the public, just to the buyer, and until the sale is complete you’re not typically giving anybody full access to the thing. If it were public/not private the minute you made it for sale, then what is the point in selling it?

Making it for sale means you intend to share it, even if conditionally. Also “taking it” doesn’t apply, making a copy isn’t taking anything.

This isn’t true either. Sometimes people make things for sale with no actual intent of selling. And the intent to share, does not make something all of a sudden not private either. You might share something (perhaps a secret) with a friend, that doesn’t mean the thing you are sharing suddenly becomes not private/public, but that the scope of people you’re will to share this thing privately with has increased by a small amount.

I also disagree with the notion that making a copy just inherently isn’t “taking” things. This is also a matter of definitions, but people actively use the word “taking” to encompass more than just physical things. Phrases like “he took my idea”, “she took my credit card information” and so on are examples of this. Obviously people do consider “taking” to include acts of copying in some cases. If you mean something else by taking, that’s fine, but your personal definition for taking isn’t really relevant when the point I’m making regards a more inclusive notion.

I’ll take your approach. No, that’s not what “taking something” means, because clearly the definition they’re using for that is more inclusive.

Keep telling yourself that champ.

its not piracy. this is /c/piracy

The ethics of data reproduction have been discussed in piracy communities for decades. It’s a central topic to communities centered around data reproduction. Pretending otherwise is stupid.

you dont need my permission you are just making a fool of yourself by trying to call piracy what is not piracy again in /c/piracy

Am I? Or are you arguing in bad faith on a topic you didn’t bother to read the context of?

Feel free to clarify why? At what point does my example become what we’re talking about? Is it the number of people the content is sold for? Is it the amount of money the content is sold for? Enlighten me.

I feel like many people would disagree with you.

I don’t see why I need your permission? I feel like talking about when it is and isn’t ethical to reproduce data is appropriate in this sort of community.