I don’t understand how “gamer style” is a thing.

Like, in general? Lots of non-functional molded plastic angular stuff with unnecessary holes, crevices, lights, and styling slapped on stuff. Let me do a quick search for “gamer mouse”.

searches

Yeah. That’s a nice example.

The ROG Phone itself isn’t a particularly over-the-top example of that, but I don’t really want the styling.

It isn’t a deal-breaker, just that I’d rather not have it; for me it was a negative.

If you’re old enough to remember Winamp skins from the early 2000s

I am, and I agree that many of those did have similar over-the-top styling…and I don’t want to buy physical hardware that looks like it.

I generally just want understated hardware without a lot of styling on it on all my computer hardware. I’m sure that there are people who do want something that looks more like the above, and that’s fine, but it’s not an aesthetic that I personally much like.

If I had to guess, part of the problem is probably “bigger” hardware moving into their space.

Like, phones have a lot of limitations for playing “heavyweight”, PC-style games:

• Small battery.

• Small screen.

• Limited ability to dissipate heat.

• Really limited space and the hardware tradeoffs that come with that.

• Touchscreen controls, even with accelerometer, aren’t ideal for a lot of games, especially PC or console ports.

For a lot of those, if you can manage to lug a laptop with you, you’re probably better off.

Then you have stuff like the Steam Deck and a bunch of similar larger-than-phone game-oriented platforms show up, and that eats even further into your market. Yeah, okay, a ROG Phone is smaller and lighter than a Steam Deck, but if you’re trying to deal with touchscreen controls by lugging along external control stuff, then you’re sacrificing some of that mobility:

https://www.androidcentral.com/phones/asus-rog-phone-9-pro-is-the-best-gaming-phone-and-its-here-in-the-us

I mean, I’m sure that there’s still a niche for heavyweight-game phone gaming, but it’s gonna have other parties eating away at the edges, narrowing it. You gotta want to play heavyweight games, not be willing to use larger-than-phone hardware, but spend a substantial amount of money on your phone (especially given the short EOL on the ROG phone) to have that ability. My guess is that some people who won’t use other hardware for gaming is because they have a phone and are price-sensitive enough to not want to get additional hardware platforms to just play games, so “users willing to spend a high premium on phone hardware to be able to game” may be a poor match to that market.

Well…darn. Aside from the “gamer” styling and their unusually short years-of-support policy, I was actually kind of interested in their ROG phones, as they have both a substantial amount of memory and large batteries, and had them on the “possibles” list for my next phone. I don’t care much about the gaming aspect, but there weren’t a lot of other options with the above characteristics.

American importers and consumers bear nearly the entire cost. Foreign exporters absorb only about 4% of the tariff burden—the remaining 96% is passed through to US buyers.

Yes.

The 2025 US tariffs are an own goal

No, not from the standpoint of the administration.

They want to shift taxes from the wealthy to the poor. That’s what a fair bit of the administration’s policy has been focused on. Tariffs are more-or-less functionally a consumption tax, which is regressive, hits the poor more-heavily than the wealthy.

But Trump said that foreign exporters will pay the tax!

Sure. Shifting taxes from the wealthy to the poor is probably not going to sell politically very well.

If Trump and company announced a national sales tax, which would also be regressive, they’d probably be in hot water politically. Instead, he’s announcing a tax where it’s less-clear who is paying, since it just generates higher prices that aren’t clearly linked to the government, and then insisting that the public isn’t being taxed.

I’m using Debian trixie on two systems with (newer) AMD hardware:

ROCm 7.0.1.70001-42~24.04 on an RX 7900 XTX

ROCm 7.0.2.70002-56~24.04 on an AMD AI Max 395+.

No problem. It was an interesting question that made me curious too.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30869297/difference-between-memfree-and-memavailable

Rik van Riel’s comments when adding MemAvailable to /proc/meminfo:

/proc/meminfo: MemAvailable: provide estimated available memory

Many load balancing and workload placing programs check /proc/meminfo to estimate how much free memory is available. They generally do this by adding up “free” and “cached”, which was fine ten years ago, but is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong today.

It is wrong because Cached includes memory that is not freeable as page cache, for example shared memory segments, tmpfs, and ramfs, and it does not include reclaimable slab memory, which can take up a large fraction of system memory on mostly idle systems with lots of files.

Currently, the amount of memory that is available for a new workload, without pushing the system into swap, can be estimated from MemFree, Active(file), Inactive(file), and SReclaimable, as well as the “low” watermarks from /proc/zoneinfo.

However, this may change in the future, and user space really should not be expected to know kernel internals to come up with an estimate for the amount of free memory.

It is more convenient to provide such an estimate in /proc/meminfo. If things change in the future, we only have to change it in one place.

Looking at the htop source:

https://github.com/htop-dev/htop/blob/main/MemoryMeter.c

   /* we actually want to show "used + shared + compressed" */
   double used = this->values[MEMORY_METER_USED];
   if (isPositive(this->values[MEMORY_METER_SHARED]))
      used += this->values[MEMORY_METER_SHARED];
   if (isPositive(this->values[MEMORY_METER_COMPRESSED]))
      used += this->values[MEMORY_METER_COMPRESSED];

   written = Meter_humanUnit(buffer, used, size);

It’s adding used, shared, and compressed memory, to get the amount actually tied up, but disregarding cached memory, which, based on the above comment, is problematic, since some of that may not actually be available for use.

top, on the other hand, is using the kernel’s MemAvailable directly.

https://gitlab.com/procps-ng/procps/-/blob/master/src/free.c

	printf(" %11s", scale_size(MEMINFO_GET(mem_info, MEMINFO_MEM_AVAILABLE, ul_int), args.exponent, flags & FREE_SI, flags & FREE_HUMANREADABLE));

In short: You probably want to trust /proc/meminfo’s MemAvailable, (which is what top will show), and htop is probably giving a misleadingly-low number.

If oomkiller starts killing processes, then you’re running out of memory.

Well, you could want to not dig into swap.

While I agree with the general sentiment, he was already in office for four during his first term, and we are at the end of the first year of his second term. So 5 out of 8 years down.

There might be some way to make use of it.

Linux apparently can use VRAM as a swap target:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Swap_on_video_RAM

So you could probably take an Nvidia H200 (141 GB memory) and set it as a high-priority swap partition, say.

Normally, a typical desktop is liable to have problems powering an H200 (600W max TDP), but that’s with all the parallel compute hardware active, and I assume that if all you’re doing is moving stuff in and out of memory, it won’t use much power, same as a typical gaming-oriented GPU.

That being said, it sounds like the route on the Arch Wiki above is using vramfs, which is a FUSE filesystem, which means that it’s running in userspace rather than kernelspace, which probably means that it will have more overhead than is really necessary.

EDIT: I think that a lot will come down to where research goes. If it turns out that someone figures out that changing the hardware (having a lot more memory, adding new operations, whatever) dramatically improves performance for AI stuff, I suspect that current hardware might get dumped sooner rather than later as datacenters shift to new hardware. Lot of unknowns there that nobody will really have the answers to yet.

EDIT2: Apparently someone made a kernel-based implementation for Nvidia cards to use the stuff directly as CPU-addressable memory, not swap.

https://github.com/magneato/pseudoscopic

In holography, a pseudoscopic image reverses depth—what was near becomes far, what was far becomes near. This driver performs the same reversal in compute architecture: GPU memory, designed to serve massively parallel workloads, now serves the CPU as directly-addressable system RAM.

Why? Because sometimes you have 16GB of HBM2 sitting idle while your neural network inference is memory-bound on the CPU side. Because sometimes constraints breed elegance. Because we can.

Pseudoscopic exposes NVIDIA Tesla/Datacenter GPU VRAM as CPU-addressable memory through Linux’s Heterogeneous Memory Management (HMM) subsystem. Not swap. Not a block device. Actual memory with struct page backing, transparent page migration, and full kernel integration.

I’d guess that that’ll probably perform substantially better.

It looks like they presently only target older cards, though.

This world is getting dumber and dumber.

Ehhh…I dunno.

Go back 20 years and we had similar articles, just about the Web, because it was new to a lot of people then.

searches

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/internet-killed-my-daughter/28397087.html

Internet killed my daughter

https://archive.ph/pJ8Dw

Were Simon and Natasha victims of the web?

https://archive.ph/i9syP

Predators tell children how to kill themselves

And before that, I remember video games.

It happens periodically — something new shows up, and then you’ll have people concerned about any potential harm associated with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

A moral panic, also called a social panic, is a widespread feeling of fear that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society.[1][2][3] It is “the process of arousing social concern over an issue”,[4] usually elicited by moral entrepreneurs and sensational mass media coverage, and exacerbated by politicians and lawmakers.[1][4] Moral panic can give rise to new laws aimed at controlling the community.[5]

Stanley Cohen, who developed the term, states that moral panic happens when “a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests”.[6] While the issues identified may be real, the claims “exaggerate the seriousness, extent, typicality and/or inevitability of harm”.[7] Moral panics are now studied in sociology and criminology, media studies, and cultural studies.[2][8] It is often academically considered irrational (see Cohen’s model of moral panic, below).

Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory pedophiles[9][10][11] and belief in ritual abuse of women and children by Satanic cults.[12] Some moral panics can become embedded in standard political discourse,[2] which include concepts such as the Red Scare[13] and terrorism.[14]

Media technologies

Main article: Media panic

The advent of any new medium of communication produces anxieties among those who deem themselves as protectors of childhood and culture. Their fears are often based on a lack of knowledge as to the actual capacities or usage of the medium. Moralizing organizations, such as those motivated by religion, commonly advocate censorship, while parents remain concerned.[8][40][41]

According to media studies professor Kirsten Drotner:[42]

[E]very time a new mass medium has entered the social scene, it has spurred public debates on social and cultural norms, debates that serve to reflect, negotiate and possibly revise these very norms.… In some cases, debate of a new medium brings about – indeed changes into – heated, emotional reactions … what may be defined as a media panic.

Recent manifestations of this kind of development include cyberbullying and sexting.[8]

I’m not sure that we’re doing better than people in the past did on this sort of thing, but I’m not sure that we’re doing worse, either.

!patientgamers@sh.itjust.works looked smug as hell. They’d been telling everyone for years.

Summary created by Smart Answers AI

chuckles

Frankly, if I were about to initiate a conflict with the US, I’d rather have Trump running the country, but you do you.

And why Bash and not another shell?

I chose it for my example because I happen to use it. You could use another shell, sure.

Should we consider “throwaway” anything that supports interactive mode of your daily driver you chose in your default terminal prompt?

Interactive mode is a good case for throwaway code, but one-off scripts would also work.

The thing is mostly that, while unpopularity does have an impact, that impact is probably going to be somewhat bounded regarding the Trump administration.

Trump cannot be voted out in the midterms, and the US does not have snap elections the way parliamentary systems do, so absent him dying in office or otherwise becoming incapacitated, he will probably be around for the rest of his term.

In general, the popularity (or lack thereof) of the President affects turnout and how people vote for legislative representatives in the midterm elections.

For the Trump administration, there are a couple of major inflection points that I’m aware of.

• Democrats take control of the House in the midterm elections. I would guess that at this point, this is most-likely going to happen, and most of what I’ve read — including from the Republican side of the aisle — agrees with this. The major impact of this will be that Democrats will be able to initiate Congressional inquiries and demand that the Executive turn over a lot of information about its activities. As I recall reading, the Trump administration specifically directed its the Executive not to respond to requests for information from Congressional representatives in anything other than situations where they were legally bound to do so, which I understand breaks with convention. Basically, the way this works is that a simple majority has to start an inquiry, and put people in front of the House, and then representatives from both sides of the aisle are allowed to require them to testify. Lisa Murkowski, a moderate Republican senator who has been critical of Trump, had some comment a while back about how the only way she found out about things was in the news, so I expect that Republican legislators probably aren’t getting much information either. I’d assume that the Democrats will use this both the present the administration in a negative light, and to turn up information damaging to the administration. It will let the Democrats block legislation that they don’t like, though I’d assume that there will be an effort to pass any legislation that they might block and that the administration wants in the first half of the term. If they find that Trump has broken the law, they can impeach Trump, but this has limited impact (other than acting as condemnation of Trump) unless they can get a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate to convict and remove him from office; this would require a number of Republican senators to agree that he needs to be out of office, and I’m skeptical that this will happen unless there is material that comes out that is considerably more damning than anything thus far.

• Democrats take control of the Senate in the midterm elections. What I’ve read is that this is possible, but unlikely. Nate Silver had an article some time back talking about how is was more-likely than one might expect (generally, the Republicans have an advantage in the Senate, as they dominate in more low-population states), and I’ve seen several other articles saying that while odds are they will not, it is a real possibility, not to be dismissed. I don’t know, off the cuff, what impact this will have. It would permit Democrats to block Trump’s nominations for people if he dismisses them, which might give cabinet members considerably more ability to disagree with him, if they want to do so. I don’t know of anything that a simple majority in both House and Senate buys the Democrats. It’d let them pass legislation that Trump disagrees with in Congress, but Trump can veto it; overriding a veto would require a two-thirds supermajority in both houses.

The US has weak party discipline; legislators are less-accountable to the party as a whole than in many countries. It’s possible that some close votes could be flipped by legislators not voting strictly along party lines. For example, some Republican legislators voted to release Epstein information.

I don’t know what, if any, impact there will be from control shift regarding the administration asserting emergency powers to impose tariffs. My understanding is that there are currently lawsuits underway, which the Trump administration is most-likely expected to lose, with a major ruling expected in the next week, but that there may be other legal routes for the administration to effectively impose tariffs. I am not sure that Trump’s approval ratings will have an impact here.

Trump’s approval probably will have an impact on his influence on Republican politicians. Trump has, in the past, threatened to and endorsed primary election opponents of those Republican politicians who disagree with him. The value of a Trump endorsement is predicated on Trump’s popularity, so Trump will generally lose sway over Republican politicians if he becomes less popular.

EDIT: The Executive mostly gets to run foreign policy, so I think that regardless of what happens in Congress, aside from tariffs (which are important and are normally a Congressional power) and extended troop deployments, US foreign policy will probably continue to be largely directed by the Trump administration.

EDIT2: Oh, winning the House will give the Democrats ability to block and thus horse-trade on the federal budget. They did so before, but that was relying on the fillibuster. The Senate can always eliminate the power; it’s simply a convention built on internal rules set by a simple majority in the Senate itself, which is presently controlled by the Republicans. While adverse to breaking with convention, in a serious enough case, a majority in the Senate could choose to simply remove that power from the minority. In contrast, there is no recourse if the House doesn’t want to pass a budget. Pretty much all of what the President does depends on having funds to do it, and he doesn’t get money unless Congress chooses to give it to him, so while it’s not a very flexible tool, it is a powerful one.

The point I’m making is that bash is optimized for quickly writing throwaway code. It doesn’t matter if the code written blows up in some case other than the one you’re using. You don’t need to handle edge cases that don’t apply to the one time that you will run the code. I write lots of bash code that doesn’t handle a bunch of edge cases, because for my one-off use, that edge case doesn’t arise. Similarly, if an LLMs is generating code that misses some edge case, if it’s a situation that will never arise, and that may not be a problem.

EDIT: I think maybe that you’re misunderstanding me as saying “all bash code is throwaway”, which isn’t true. I’m just using it as an example where throwaway code is a very common, substantial use case.

I don’t know: it’s not just the outputs posing a risk, but also the tools themselves

Yeah, that’s true. Poisoning the training corpus of models is at least a potential risk. There’s a whole field of AI security stuff out there now aimed at LLM security.

it shouldn’t require additional tools, checking for such common flaws.

Well, we are using them today for human programmers, so… :-)

No problem; I remember being delighted to learn that there was a name for the thing, years back.

Also, one other comment regarding the “change away from mechanical toggle”. If you got the machine pre-built, you may never have noticed this, but on ATX motherboards, there’s a set of pins which you fit the power and reset switch wires onto.

I mean, you can plug whatever you feel like onto those pins and stick your power and reset buttons wherever you feel like, if you don’t like the position of the existing case switch. It’s just a momentary switch. You can grab replacement ones that aren’t built into a case:

https://www.amazon.com/Warmstor-2-Pack-Computer-Supply-27-inch/dp/B074XDTVN1

Or even just get your own switches and connect the plug and wires to whatever sort of momentary switch you want. Amazon or Mouser or DigiKey will have all sorts of momentary switches.

Security is where the gap shows most clearly

So, this is an area where I’m also pretty skeptical. It might be possible to address some of the security issues by making minor shifts away from a pure-LLM system. There are (conventional) security code-analysis tools out there, stuff like Coverity. Like, maybe if one says “all of the code coming out of this LLM gets rammed through a series of security-analysis tools”, you catch enough to bring the security flaws down to a tolerable level.

One item that they highlight is the problem of API keys being committed. I’d bet that there’s already software that will run on git-commit hooks that will try to red-flag those, for example. Yes, in theory an LLM could embed them into code in some sort of obfuscated form that slips through, but I bet that it’s reasonable to have heuristics that can catch most of that, that will be good-enough, and that such software isn’t terribly difficult to write.

But in general, I think that LLMs and image diffusion models are, in their present form, more useful for generating output that a human will consume than that a CPU will consume. CPUs are not tolerant of errors in programming languages. Humans often just need an approximately-right answer, to cue our brains, which itself has the right information to construct the desired mental state. An oil painting isn’t a perfect rendition of the real world, but it’s good enough, as it can hint to us what the artist wanted to convey by cuing up the appropriate information about the world that we have in our brains.

This Monet isn’t a perfect rendition of the world. But because we have knowledge in our brain about what the real world looks like, there’s enough information in the painting to cue up the right things in our head to let us construct a mental image.

Ditto for rough concept art. Similarly, a diffusion model can get an image approximately right — some errors often just aren’t all that big a deal.

But a lot of what one is producing when programming is going to be consumed by a CPU that doesn’t work the way that a human brain does. A significant error rate isn’t good enough; the CPU isn’t going to patch over flaws and errors itself using its knowledge of what the program should do.

EDIT:

I’d bet that there’s already software that will run on git-commit hooks that will try to red-flag those, for example.

Yes. Here are instructions for setting up trufflehog to run on git pre-commit hooks to do just that.

EDIT2: Though you’d need to disable this trufflehog functionality and have some out-of-band method for flagging false positives, or an LLM could learn to bypass the security-auditing code by being trained on code that overrides false positives:

Add trufflehog:ignore comments on lines with known false positives or risk-accepted findings