lol obviously not tax evasion. Keep paying those state and federal taxes and everyone is happy. Also pay any applicable EU taxes. The OP is prioritizing living in the EU. If that’s #1 then you have to accept you’re going to pay extra taxes.
Only when the little guy does it. If you are high net worth and use a web of shell companies & various schemes to achieve the same outcome then it's no longer criminal.
Electricity is cheap. If this is sufficiently or actually important for your org, you should measure it yourself. There are too many variables and factors subject to your org’s hardware.
Totally disagree. Most end users are on laptops and mobile devices these days, not desktop towers. Thus power efficiency is important for battery life. Performance per watt would be an interesting comparison.
You might be surprised. Rename your Photo.JPG as Photo.PNG and you'll still get a perfectly fine thumbnail. The extension is a hint, but it isn't definitive, especially when you start downloading from the web.
Of course, it's arguably unlikely a virus scanner would opt for an ML-based approach, as they specifically need to be robust against adversarial inputs.
I mean if you care about that you shouldn't be running anything that isn't highly optimized. Don't open webpages that might be CPU or GPU intensive. Don't run Electron apps, or really anything that isn't built in a compiled language.
Certainly you should do an audit of all the Android and iOS apps as well, to make sure they've been made in a efficient manner.
Block ads as well, they waste power.
This file identification is SUCH a small aspect of everything that is burning power in your laptop or phone as to be laughable.
Whilst energy usage is indeed a small aspect this early on when using bespoke models, we do have to consider that this is a model for simply identifying a file type.
What happens when we introduce more bespoke models for manipulating the data in that file?
This feels like it could slowly boil to the point of programs using magnitudes higher power, at which point it'll be hard to claw it back.
That's a slippery slope argument, which is a common logical fallacy[0]. This model being inefficient compared to the best possible implementation does not mean that future additions will also be inefficient.
It's the equivalent to saying many people programming in Ruby is causing all future programs to be less efficient. Which is not true. In fact, many people programming in Ruby has caused Ruby to become more efficient because it gets optimised as it gets used more (or Python for that matter).
It's not as energy efficient as C, but it hasn't caused it to get worse and worse, and spiral out of control.
Likewise smart contracts are incredibly inefficient mechanisms of computation. The result is mostly that people don't use them for any meaningful amounts of computation, that all gets done "Off Chain".
Generative AI is definitely less efficient, but it's likely to improve over time, and indeed things like quantization has allowed models that would normally to require much more substantial hardware resources (and therefore, more energy intensive) to be run on smaller systems.
The slippery slope fallacy is: "this is a slope. you will slip down it." and is always fallacious. Always. The valid form of such an argument is: "this is a slope, and it is a slippery one, therefore, you will slip down it."
In general you're right, but I can't think of a single local use for identifying file types by a human on a laptop - at least, one with scale where this matters. It's all going to be SaaS services where people upload stuff.
We are building a data analysis tool with great UX, where users select data files, which are then parsed and uploaded to S3 directly, on their client machines. The server only takes over after this step.
Since the data files can be large, this approach bypasses having to trnasfer the file twice, first to the server, and then to S3 after parsing.
Companies operating in some countries are required in certain circumstances (forced layoffs), to consider the social aspect of who they make redundant.
So people that have children, or are disabled, or older, or anyone who may have difficultly finding a job and losing their job would bring hardship (especially to vulnerable dependents of the employee) are required legally to grade each employee on a social risk scale and make those who are most mobile and independent redundant as a priority.
As you might guess, companies therefore try to avoid such programs in favor of voluntary redundancy, in the hope that such employees will take the payout.
These kind of programs (when enforced) tend to push out the young, driven, hungry, innovative employees in the company.
It means that the voluntary redundancy packages offered by companies need to be attractive, so for the employee it provides them with safeguards that they can feel secure in their jobs and their lives.
In the end it’s a balancing act between consideration for the human, versus pure unbridled entrepreneurship.
This is not the case in Spotifys country. It is first in last out. You can get around it by creating a team and letting the whole team go or if they have been given multiple warnings without improvement.
> But we rarely think about ethnic imperialism — an empire trying to gobble up neighboring polities because of linguistic and cultural similarity, so that it can be the ruler of a specific cultural sphere. (In fact, the British conquest of Ireland, the Japanese conquest of Korea and China)
Uh no. The Yamato people wanted these countries for land and resources. Japan was never interested in extending their culture, nor proactively assimilating other ethnic groups into their own, with the exception of maybe the Ryukyuan on Okinawa. If this were the case, you’d seen it in Taiwan. They didn’t want to assimilate the Koreans who already in their country for generations, either. I can only presume author is a white person, because the cultural affinity of Japan bifurcated from China a millennial ago. Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
Yes? Japan only controlled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, and only started really ramping up assimilationist policies towards the end of that period, but the influence of Japanese culture was nonetheless quite great, with many locals becoming bilingual in Japanese.
Then the ROC took over, instituted Mandarin as the official language while suppressing all others, and after losing control of the mainland retreated to Taiwan together with a large influx of Mandarin speakers. Now Mandarin is the dominant language, despite not being present before the end of Japanese rule.
So when you don't see many obvious Japanese influences in Taiwan today, don't forget that more time has passed since the end of Japanese rule than Taiwan was controlled by Japan in the first place.
Japan's colonial policy on Korea varied over time, but they were consistently hostile against educating people in the Korean language (I mean, they wanted low wage workers for the empire, so obviously they would want them to speak passable Japanese), and toward the end it became a full attempt at erasing Korean identity, with banning the Korean language in classrooms, forcing Shintoism on Koreans, and even forcing every Korean to abandon their own name and pick up a Japanese name [1].
> Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
I mean, yeah sure, that's what Japan claimed. In the same sense Hitler was defending the great German Lebensraum from evil intruders.
> We build cybernetic systems called companies with the goal of creating/increasing profit.
Except CEOs such as Google's are incentivized to maximize their own payouts. It just happens that during their tenure, this happens to be aligned with shareholder value.
> Some of this (tech industry) productivity gains just come from adoption of existing tools like Google Workspace or Office 365, issue trackers and version control with tools like Gitlab, Github, or Jira.
Why would other industries need version control with tools like Gitlab, Github, or Jira. These tools exist to solve complexity problems that arise in software. They aren't making the tech industry more productive then others. If anything, it's a huge red flag if a company is a little too obsessed with Jira.
