C’est pour encourager les autres

Also it would be seriously unfair to treat a foreigner any better (or worse) than a local that committed the same crime.

Well, now we’re down to “pragmatic responses”.

By which point we’re not “punishing” anybody for being bad boys, we’re doing things for geo-strategical value - basically to change behavior or reduce the possibility of future behaviors which are bad for us.

What the poster that originated this thread wanted - that Europe stops sending any tech to China because in his or her view China “supports” (unclear how much is too much) Russia - is not an appropriate response in pragmatic terms because it is a hostile movement towards a massive and increasingly influential nation - China - to try and change unclear behavior (just how much does China really “support” Russia compared to, say, India?) which supposedly indirectly would change somebody else’s (Russia) behavior. Specifically for the EU, said somebody else is bad for it because they basically bark a lot towards it (whilst not actually biting it, though they do bit others) and have committed crimes in the EU at the level of a small organized crime organization.

How exactly is it pragmatic to go down a route of trade aggression towards a giant nation which is friendish towards a different nation to somehow (magic?) try and deter said other nation from further committing in the EU the level of crime of a small criminal organization?!

The retribution from China would cost the EU vastly more than the problem that action by the EU might (but it’s not at all guaranteed) ameliorate.

That’s not pragmatic in any way form or shape.

If we’re going for punishing them, then that’s not “pragmatic” anymore, that’s at the level of principles, at which point what I wrote about punishing all imperialists, genociders and their supports applies.

If you think denying technology to China because they work with Russia is a proportional response to Russia murdering people in Europe, I have some news for you about CIA activities all over the World including in Europe …

It’s a lot more simple to just follow the logic of Principles and pushing back on those commiting wars of aggression and genocide and those who support them as a rule and without trying to treat some of those one way and others differently for *reasons*, than try and come up with the perfect red-line of actions in Europe which decides between “do nothing at all” and “block anybody in any away associated with them”, that puts Russia on the bad side of the line and the likes of America on the good side so that we can keep on treating one set of murderous imperialists better than the other.

Ah, I see, you’re driven by “what’s in it for me”, not by principles.

Well, by that logic, I as an EU citizen shouldn’t give a shit, since Russia hasn’t attacked the EU (at most they should get a proportional talkie-talkie response when they engage in talkie-talkie “aggression”) and meanwhile it’s more profitable for the EU to engage with China than it is to cut them of, and as for the rest of Europe (most notably Ukraine), well screw them same as the “screw Palestinians” of your position.

Even better, as a Portuguese and thus as far from Russia as possible whilst still being in Europe, by your “self interest” motivation I shouldn’t give a shit about Russia even if they invaded Eastern European EU countries.

Of course, me being a person of principles, I support Palestine against the Israeli Genocide same as I support Ukraine against Russia aggression (no need to feel personally endangered by either aggressor) and what I think the EU should do in the international plane follows from that, but that’s not at all your reason to wanting that Europe behaves towards China in a certain way.

That’s actually an excellent summary of the whole situation.

As an European, I very much prefer that we apply to those who support Israel the same standards we do for those who support Russia.

So I’m absolutelly fine that we do not give BOTH Israel’s and Russia’s allies important technology.

Doing otherwise would show our “European values” to in practice be nothing more than sociopathic hypocrisy.

Of course, then ASML wouldn’t be able to sell its machines to America and at least half of Europe as well as quite number of other countries.

Saying you “invalidate” content that is “properly researched and legitimately correct” = what?

I read it as meaning the definition of the person producing the content of “properly researched and legitimately correct” rather than one’s own.

Content produced by somebody who claims it has been “properly researched and legitimately correct” and that person thinks Claude is a proper research and validation tool, should be treated as invalid until proven otherwise.

It’s like when a Junior level professional comes to you with something and says “I made sure this is all correct” - one can’t really trust that the thing is indeed “all correct”.

I think that at least when it comes to America it’s more than widely proven that they have an insanely large digital spying infrastructure (not just the 4-eyes stuff but also all that the NSA does, a lot of which having been revealed by Snowden) and even very openly laws such as the Patriot Act and the Cloud Act that let them force American companies to spy for them.

No “hysteria” necessary to conclude that America will do whatever it takes to spy on everybody (both internally and internationally).

Yeah, well, when was the last time common people and business paid attention to IT Security experts BEFORE their systems were broken into?!

Also, who would pay the people with the necessary expertise to decompile all BIOS of all motherboard shipments (if at all possible, in this day and age when a lot of shit is encrypted with the keys inside a TPM module)?

I mean, just go at it another way - notice how thousands of pager sent to Lebanon were altered by the Israelis and nobody were aware of it until the Israelis made them explode.

In this day and age it’s pretty straightforward to just alter the software for some shipments and not others or add a weakness (like both Intel and AMD CPUs have) that can be used as a backdoor by software that’s installed remotely (for example, pushed as a Windows update, something which certain American 3 letter agencies can most certainly do since the have the power to demand the signing keys from MS).

There are huge numbers of vectors for spyware to end up in certain computers that start with subtly backdooring the hardware itself.

It’s about complex products which contain RAM rather than other component.

Anything made in China which has RAM in it will have its price affected by the price of RAM so if Chinese brands of such products have access to cheaper RAM than non-Chinese brands, they can outcompete the latter on price whilst delivering similar quality products.

Personally I tend to assemble my own desktop PCs, but for example in the past when buying a Mini-PC I would pick a Chinese brand one if cheaper since the quality is the same. Now imagine if the Chinese brand is now 1/2 the price of the non-Chinese one because the former uses RAM from China whose price is nowhere as high as the hyper-inflated South Korean RAM - in this kind of device were the quality is the same, the Chinese product will always be the better option if it’s half the price because of using way cheaper RAM.

It’s not a question of concern, it’s a question of what’s technically possible.

It’s technically possible to ship a motherboard with spyware capabilities in the BIOS.

Different performative elements and mechanisms for determing the subset of people who are priviledged elites, same operating principles.

Yeah, pulling the “America are good guys, China are bad guys” card at a time when America are unwavering allies and supporters of the nation who is openly doing in the XXI century the same kind of thing as the Nazis did, with equal levels of inhumanity and ultra-racist violence, doesn’t have quite the same power as it did even a decade ago (though even then the whole Iraq invasion thing had already showed the American “moral high ground” as being mainly a tall pile of mainly middle eastern corpses).

Well, you absolutelly can make digital products that run at least some built-in software and have network connectivity spy on people, but RAM is no such product in either sense - in neither runs software (and given it’s performance constrainst it would be stupidly hard to add it as a feature) nor does it have any network connectivity.

Routers and motherboards, for example, yeah - both have network connectivity and both include and run software so shipping them with spyware is just a question of the factory or distributer putting the right software in them (for motherboards, in the BIOS and running inside as secure code, inside the CPU itself or even in certain peripherals).

(It would be possible to put it in places with more indirect access to networking - such as SSDs - but it’s more complex at they would need to hack OS binaries on the fly)

Of course, even for the stuff were it’s possible, it’s seriously deluded to think only one of the nations with insane civil society surveillance levels that sells those things - China - would be adding spyware to it but not the other one - the US: devices with the capabilities to support spyware made in or designed in any nation which does a lot of surveillance are always suspect.

The Chinese government being much more fans of a directed market than of a totally unregulated one (neither of which is a Free Market by the way - that thing only exists when barriers to market entry are incredibly low, and it’s not as if any Jack or Joe can set up their very own memory production cottage factory in their backyard, so it’s not possible for there to be a Free Market in RAM under current technology), they’ll probably make sure that RAM only ever leaves China as part of more complex products (i.e. computers, smartphones, tablets and so on) made in China, thus making also Made In China for those product lines be more competitive.

(In other words, want a gaming PC or smartphone with more memory - buy the whole thing from China or pay 10x more)

If properly managed this could boost quite a lot more digital electronics industries in China than merelly RAM.

I’m not sure if this is still a thing or not, but about a decade ago there was this whole “dual channel memory access” mode that accelerated memory access for the CPU by accessing data from 2 DIMMs in parallel.

In motherboards capable of doing this, memory slots would come in multiples of 2, with specific slots being paired and if both slots of such a pair had memory DIMMs of the same size, the motherboard would use “dual channel” mode, otherwise it would use the slower “single channel” mode (it could also be forced by configuration to always use “single channel” mode)

Dual channel only really worked well if the timings on both DIMMs were pretty much the same, so people wanting to take advantage of this mode would buy memory sticks as pairs, not just having the same size and brand but even from the same manufacturing batch so that both had data access timings as close as possible.

If you occupied one of those “paired” slots with mismatched memory of the same size as the other slot of the pair and did not explicitly disable “dual channel” access on the BIOS, you could get memory problems because accessing both DIMMs in parallel had problems when they returned the memory contents at different rates or with different delays.

All this to say that maybe what the Lenovo started trying to do with the BIOS update was dual channel mode or similar, only it was pairing a soldered memory module with a memory module in a SODIMM slot and those have different memory access speeds because physical contacts and directly soldered pins have quite different electrical characteristics for high speed signals, so the former simply can’t safelly handle as high frequencies (and hence data rates) as the latter.

Part of the problem being that AI transforms people with low communication practice into wall-of-text producers and now the cost is on the readers to spend the time and energy filtering the AI-generated and reviewed and proofread stuff from the AI-generated and straight out the door stuff.

The simplest solution for this is to just refuse to consume AI-generated text. It’s no real loss since if one wants the AI answer, one can just ask the AI themselves.

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that the people behind the biggest investment and financial scam of the century would, to make more money, fuck up people other than just investors!

Maaaan, look at those sexy Cat6’s!

I think that there are roughly 4 causes:

• As you mentioned, people promoted all the way up to the first position they are truly incompetent at, i.e. the Peter Principle
• Nepotism and cronyism - people are getting the jobs because who they know (i.e. “the old boys network”) or who their family are, not competence.
• People get the job because they’re good at personal image management and social networking - they mingle with the right people and project the right impression with things like speaking in a firm confident manner about things they know nothing about - which are fine skills to have and even applicable to some of the job of management (at the mid and above management levels), just not enough for the rest of the job of management, and that part missing is in most management positions the biggest chunk (and includes the stuff for recognition of risks and accounting for them).
• Upper level managers hire people like themselves to work under them. This partly overlaps with number 2 but goes further. When said upper level management is incompetent because they got in due to one or more of the other 3 problems, they hire people the same profile as themselves even if not due to those reasons directly (a simple example: managers who look and behave posh because they attended a posh private school will tend to hire managers who look the same hence are likely to have attended such schools themselves - this isn’t directly cronyism but ends up producing a similar effect as they’re selecting people from their social domain even if they don’t know them personally)

I would say that nowadays in management the first one is a pretty small fraction of it (except maybe in the less prestigious and less paid low level management positions) because people are rarely “promoted from the ground floor” nowadays and hiring for more prestigious positions is very heavy on the impression people project, so most of the problem are numbers 2 and 3 plus a bit of number 4.

Number 4 is especially pernicious because it means that once an institution is managed at the top level by people who do not recognize the importance of certain skills in management (like caring about and understanding risk analysis) it tends to mainly hire people who are the same for other management positions and even for replacements for the top job - people who don’t think a certain skill or mindset is important for the job are not going to have as a hiring criteria that candidates have such skill or mindset.