No, because banning social media at large probably isn't the right answer. It's certain interaction patterns that cause harm. That can be pushed back against either technologically (ex chronological feeds) or culturally (ie via moderation).

There's no perfect solution but some are significantly better than others.

All the explainers in the world don't matter if people don't actually use the terminology that way.

I was also there. We (ie the people I interacted with) called myspace social media and considered discussion forums to be a specialized subset of social media.

We also considered myspace to be a social network (due to the friend graph) while forums were not.

The chans were a weird almost edge case. I think they qualify as social media but the lack of persistent identities significantly changes the dynamics (obviously).

This delineation does not match the common usage of the terms as I understand them. If you want to talk about parasocial media then just use that term.

I'm not sure that photoshopping a dog in place of the portrait would qualify to though. It's immediately obvious that it is neither you nor a valid government issued document so doesn't that preclude it qualifying as forgery?

Outside of formal logic an argument does not need to be logically sound to have merit. You are extrapolating from "logical fallacy" to (something approximating) "invalid line of reasoning in most or all cases" which is simply not correct.

There are many potentially slippery slopes in politics. The extent to which they prove to be a problem in practice depends entirely on context. Approximately none of those cases will involve formal logic.

Doesn't self hosting usually exempt you? Most such regulations only apply to commercial entities above some minimum user count.

While I personally strongly favor federated solutions those are of significantly more concern in this regard.

Good luck telling a FOSS project what to do. At the very least you'd have to pay for the work and it seems to me they could claim whatever price they want.

Proof of just how lossy the compression is.

> Combined over a billion iterations: 158,000x total slowdown

I don't think that's a valid explanation. If something takes 8x as long then if you do it a billion times it still takes 8x as long. Just now instead of 1 vs 8 it's 1 billion vs 8 billion.

I'd be curious to know what's actually going on here to cause a multiple order of magnitude degradation compared to the simpler test cases (ie ~10x becomes ~150,000x). Rather than I-cache misses I wonder if register spilling in the nested loop managed to completely overwhelm L3 causing it to stall on every iteration waiting for RAM. But even that theory seems like it could only account for approximately 1 order of magnitude, leaving an additional 3 (!!!) orders of magnitude unaccounted for.

I think there's a lot more to the story here.

That stuck out to me as well.

I wonder if there could be a bug where extra code runs but the result is discarded (and the code that runs happens to have no side effects).

The post also says

> That is roughly 1 billion iterations

but that doesn't sound right because GCC's version runs in only 0.047s, and no CPU can do a billion iterations that quickly.

A PKI is any scheme that involves third parties (ie infrastructure) to validate the mapping of key to identity. The US DoD runs a massive PKI. Web of trust (incl. PGP) is debatably a form of PKI. DID is a PKI specification. You can set up an internal PKI for use with ssh. The list goes on.