RickRussell_CA

Certainly, but Apple was comparing itself to other computer companies with international reach, not to the white box PCs coming out of the Floppy Wizard store in the strip center.

The interaction between Jobs (Michael Fassbender) and Woz (Seth Rogen) pretty much sums up the Apple ][ era.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fweZsmH4Tw

So, I lived through that time, and I supported computers professionally during that time. I started working at a university help desk in 1989.

It’s easy to go back and look at Apple products and white-box PCs of the era (or quasi-legit clones like Compaq, HP, Gateway, etc) and say, “oh, on specs, the Apples were MASSIVELY overpriced – you can get a much better deal with the PC”.

The problem was that PCs were nowhere near on par, functionally, with Macintosh.

• Networking. We were running building-wide Appletalk networks – with TCP/IP gateways – over existing phone wires YEARS before anybody figured out how to get coax or 10base-T installed. We were playing NETWORK GAMES (Bolo, anyone) on Mac in the late 80s.

• And when they did… what do you do with networking in DOS? Unless you ran a completely canned network OS (remember Banyan, Novell, etc. ad infinitum?) and canned apps specifically designed to work with it, you were SOL. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 were a joke compared to System 7.

I configured PCs and Macs for the freshman class in 1995. For the Mac? You plug the ethernet port in and the OS does the rest. For the PC… find a DOS-compatible packet driver that works with your network card, get it running, then run Trumpet Winsock in Windows 3.1, then… then… it was a goddamned nightmare. We had to have special clinics just to get people’s PCs up and running with a web browser, and even then, there were about 10% of machines we just had to say “nope”. Can’t find a working driver, can’t get anything working right. Your IRQs are busted? Who fuckin’ knows. I ran the “Ethernet Clinic” until the late 90s, when Windows 98 finally properly integrated the TCP/IP layer in the OS.

• Useful software on the Mac had a pretty consistent look & feel. On the PC? Even in Windows 3.1, it was all over the map. You might have a Windows native program, you might have a DOS program that launches in a console window, you might have a completely different graphical interface embedded in the software (Delphi apps, anyone?). Games were using DOS into the mid 90s because getting anything working right in Windows 3.1 was a total fuckin crap shoot.

Windows 95 started to fix things, finally. And Windows XP would finally bring an OS with stability comparable to Mac (arguably WIndows 2000 as well, but it was never really offered on non-corporate PCs).

The short version is: that $3000 Mac could do a lot more than that $1800 PC, even if the specs said that the CPU was faster on the PC.

Well, that button probably dates from the late 80s or early 90s, when Apple was comparing Macs to branded IBM PS/2s and such that were sold to schools and enterprises.

And they weren’t wrong, at the time. Those PS/2s were fuckin’ expensive.

They need Dimo Higgins, Goblin Hunter

“An entire data center” is 8 rented racks in two enterprise data centers (4 racks in each). They’re paying $60K/month for racks, cooling, and location.

IMO, I think the world is going to transition to using they/them for gender unspecified folks. I’ve been practicing using they/them in written and spoken communications, and it comes off a lot less strange than you’d think.

I can’t believe I forgot about this, but if you really want to explore the question of future people reconstructing the past through AI, watch the movie Marjorie Prime, which is explicitly about this question.

The act of conferring with only a subset of that group

Cis women are stakeholders, I didn’t mean to imply that they are the only stakeholders That may be lack of clarity on my part. I definitely did not mean to suggest that ONLY cis women’s opinions matter, or should be considered in rulemaking.

I offered that as a counterpoint to the assertion that the opinion of cis women is morally equivalent to the opinion of racists.

Again, I don’t really know how or if women chess players (cis or trans) were solicited for their opinions on these rule changes.

Yeah, almost nothing. SMS is a utility tool for me. I doubt anyone will ever care that my wife wanted more zip-lock bags.

You’d get a better picture of me through old USENET posts (which are unencrypted, of course), or reddit or web forums or Lemmy (all of them unencrypted, I suspect). Good luck, future people.

The assumption with this line of thinking is that trans women don’t inherently belong to that class of participation

I don’t think it’s right to call it “an assumption”. By definition, a restricted competition class uses rules to establish who is allowed to participate. These rules are willfully and intentionally composed. When circumstances arise that make the rules ambiguous in some way, the participating community is called to clarify them.

This isn’t unique to women’s chess, it applies to any restricted class sport or competition.

But following this analogy through, you’re not asking all PoC. You’re asking the majority of the subset (for example, black participants) whether a minority of the subset (for example, Asian participants) should be allowed to participate or not.

To be clear, I am not in any sense telling the chess world, much less women players, how to set the rules for their restricted class of competition. I am saying that women chess players are stakeholders in the rules of women’s chess. Precisely how their input is to be converted into a decision is not in my scope of understanding, and it would be presumptuous of me to hazard a guess at how they prefer to operate women’s chess.

The decision is already made, and pointing to the remainder to justify the decision is working backwards

Agreed, and that was not my intent.

I genuinely don’t how or if women chess players were involved in this decision, I’m only responding to the assertion that asking “what cis women think about playing trans women” is morally equivalent to asking racists whether they want to play against black people. It paints current women players with a broad brush and disenfranchises them from the management of their own competition.

We must have VERY different opinions of what our shopping habits or e-mails say about us. My email wouldn’t tell you jack squat.

I think similarly. If, as a previous commenter implied, the main concern is discomfort related to social mixing between men and women participants, then the vast majority of female chess players are probably fine with including transwomen. But it’s their restricted class and they should be full stakeholders in any decisions.

I think every sport has its own challenges regarding trans/intersex participation in restricted women’s classes, and it’s certainly not my role to tell women participating in those classes that they should accept participants with male genetics. I’m 100% behind social acceptance of trans identity, but athletic contests add a dimension that I am in no way qualified to comment on.

As MC Frontalot opines:

Future people do not give a damn about your shopping, your Visa number SSL’d to Cherry-Popping Hot Grampa Action websites that you visit, nor password-protected partitions, no matter how illicit.

And this, it would seem, is your saving grace: the amazing haste of people to forget your name, your face, your litanous list of indefensible indiscretions.

They’ll glance you over, I guess, and then for a bare moment you’ll persist to exist; almost seems like you’re there, don’t it? But you’re not. You’re here. Your name will fade as Front’s will.

That’s a fair question, but I think the answer is obvious. Until the invention of photography, literally the only formal records we had of past events were the things people bothered to write down, paint, or sculpt. And of those, we only have the arts and written records that actually survived. So to find out information about the distant past, we have little choice but to extrapolate from artifacts, dig up old buildings, etc. The artifacts and records that we do find have outsized influence on our understanding of the past, compared to all the information and details that have been lost, which can literally never be recovered.

From the 21st century onward, that relationship is inverted. Any hypothetically useful unit of information about the past will be recorded hundreds or thousands of times, and the useless units of information will outnumber the useful units by many orders of magnitude. Sure, if someone proves to be exceptionally notable, there may be some value in decrypting their past Amazon purchases or cracking the encrypted SSD they left behind. But that’s going to be the exceedingly rare exception, rather than the rule, especially when the world’s data stores are crammed with news articles, photos, videos, interviews, blog posts, reddit posts, journals, and non-encrypted records that appear to tell a complete story of the lives of notable people, and for that matter the day-to-day lives of regular folk.

And that SSD may be every bit as exciting as the Hunter Biden laptop hard disk… that is, barely exciting at all, and full of such routine and irrelevant information as to be an almost pointless exercise in data forensics.

In the final analysis, nobody cares what Harold Q. Dumpington bought from Amazon in the week of June 4, 2017. That information is technically still stored in Amazon’s databases, but (1) Amazon already has access to it, so encryption is a sort of non-issue, and (2) nobody cares.

The reality is: socially engineering a password or setting up a “man in the middle” attack in a coffee shop WiFi is a hell of a lot easier than attacking encrypted data, but even those attacks are relatively rare, and usually executed against corporations with money. As tempting as it would be for some hacker to get into Jennifer Lawrence’s e-mail or Chris Pratt’s Amazon purchase history, it seems that it’s really not worth the effort to anybody, except in some edge cases.

Putting aside the whole question of what people might want to feed into an AI, why would anybody want that data AT ALL?

MC Frontalot has a song about this, Secrets from the Future.

if a racist said they didn’t want to play with black people

If the larger community proposed a restricted class for black people, we would still listen to black people about whether they thought it was a good idea, not the racists.

The previous commenters’ statement that we need to listen to the women in the women’s restricted participation class, with respect to rule changes for the women’s restricted class, is valid. I think you’ve jumped to a conclusion that women chess players would oppose including trans chess players, without a basis in fact. It’s not clear to me that proposed restrictions on trans participation are actually coming from women participants.

But if women players are concerned about the effect of including trans players (whatever effect that may be), clearly we should listen to them. The limited participation women’s class exists to serve the needs of the women in that class.

I think you vastly overestimate the future’s interest in your life.

She’s obviously pretty frustrated, it’s just not clear to me that she’s been permanently silenced, that’s all I’m saying. She said specifically that she doesn’t want to be ammunition in an ideological war between east and west, so perhaps she anticipates a relaxation of the restrictions after a cooling off period.

EDIT: Honestly, I may be misreading her. We only get a few sentences from Naomi Wu herself, but she seems at the same time dismissive of Western attention (“we’re just signs for people like you in the West to wave at each other in their ideological war”), and seems to think her notoriety in the West was keeping authorities at bay (“Literally the only thing that was keeping me online for the past few years was they were worried it would make China look bad if they cracked down on me”).

Anyway, I hope the authorities back down, it’s not clear what agenda they are serving by restricting her video & social media access.

Because it’s a restricted participation class, and like it or not the details of those restrictions are important to the participants.

If the class exists because women want it, then it’s reasonable ask women participants what they want.

If someone proposed a restricted class limited to PoC, it would be entirely appropriate to ask PoC what they think about the proposal.