4 ms·

"Ideally we would have some government action to force this given the ongoing cost to society in corrupted data" Why is it so often Australia with the "We must

"Ideally we would have some government action to force this given the ongoing cost to society in corrupted data" Why is it so often Australia with the "We must force unnecessary things upon people" attitude?

Xirdus 3mo ago
Because despite geographical location, Australia is a western country, and all western countries are like that.
gleenn 3mo ago
That particular quote did stand out to me. I think the counter claim is that if everyone uses software everywhere for everything, there is a very real societal cost for damaged data and if it's hard to detect then there is no way to prevent or measure harm. I think the "invisible hand" free market is showing some serious strain in modern times. People stopped using leaded-gas because it was causing measurable decreases in IQ for generations. I don't care how much you want to save a few dollars if it harms a lot of people and is difficult to measure. Everything else seems like a race to the bottom price so pushing the market in this manner doesn't bother me in the least. If you are running a server with others' data at stake, it seems like an obvious benefit for society on the whole to address the problem rather than serve some cheap datacenter operators.
some_random 3mo ago
I think it's a pattern that reinforces itself, as a nanny state develops it's opinion of it's people worsens and it's more willing to use force to compel them.
- _factor 3mo ago
  Right, the opinion shifting to the people being unworthy of uncorrupted data unless they’re wealthy enough to pay the artificial extortion price for integrity.
  - some_random 3mo ago
    When you are used to thinking of citizens as children who need a nanny, all problems become bedtime shaped.
  - CamperBob2 3mo ago
    What you're actually saying is that I shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of RAM my application needs. Instead, you are saying that someone with a gun should dictate this choice to me. That's what we mean when we say that people with your point of view are promoting nanny-statism. It amounts to infantilization of adult consumers and subsequent disempowerment. Occasionally such legislation can be justified, as when genuinely hazardous products are involved, or products whose use involves wide-ranging externalities, but usually not. People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.
    - etbe 3mo ago
      How do YOU propose doing this when most computer "experts" have never used ECC RAM and when it's only available in high end specialist systems that aren't on sale in regular computer stores? I think my knowledge of the topic is pretty good but I learned from this discussion that almost all AMD CPUs support ECC RAM and you apparently just need a motherboard to match. When accompanying people who were buying "gamer" PCs (after they rejected my recommendation for a second hand workstation grade computer with ECC RAM) I never witnessed store staff saying "hey you could get a motherboard with ECC support".
      - CamperBob2 3mo ago
        It's simply none of my business whether or not someone does the homework to understand what kind of RAM they should buy. I bothered to inform myself; they can, too.
        _factor 3mo ago
        Next up. CPUs that will spit out the wrong calculations 1/1M times. You’ll have to pay more for the enterprise version to get uncorrupted processing. The spare traces cost 5 cents, but we can charge 20% more for the privilege instead. Just because you can allow it, doesn’t mean you should. I don’t want to live in a world where you need a PhD to avoid being scammed by increasingly sophisticated ploys. Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.
inigyou 3mo ago
How is it unnecessary. Australia has tons of laws about faulty products. All developed countries do
- lightedman 3mo ago
  [flagged]
adrian_b 3mo ago
This would be a consumer protection law like any other such law. Forcing the vendors to sell only products that do what they are advertised cannot be considered in any way as "forcing unnecessary things upon people". Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time and you have no idea when that happens. Originally, any IBM PC or compatible had memory error detection. All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro". So they removed memory error detection support from the Pentium chipsets (Intel Triton), so that this would remain a marketing feature exclusive to the "Pro" Intel products. Obviously the removal of this feature from "consumer" products was done without any price reduction, which made happy also the memory vendors, because this trick increased their profits. So in the next years this market segmentation method became the "standard" business practice, preying on the naivety of most computer users. A consumer protection law should force that any computer or motherboard must support ECC, which adds a completely negligible cost. The end users may buy non-ECC modules, if they choose so, but non-ECC modules should be sold like cigarettes, with a visible advertisement that using such modules may cause unpredictable errors in your computer.
- flaunf221 3mo ago
  > Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time So are the computers with ECC memory. It's not an absolute protection either.
  - graemep 3mo ago
    Seatbelts and working brakes are not an absolute protection either, but i still want them.
- lightedman 3mo ago
  "All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro"." I hate to break it to you but the computer I had in the 80s didn't come with ECC. Non-ECC computing was a thing WELL BEFORE Intel tried to think of market segmentation. Revisionist history is not welcomed here.

Xirdus 3mo ago

Because despite geographical location, Australia is a western country, and all western countries are like that.

gleenn 3mo ago

That particular quote did stand out to me. I think the counter claim is that if everyone uses software everywhere for everything, there is a very real societal cost for damaged data and if it's hard to detect then there is no way to prevent or measure harm. I think the "invisible hand" free market is showing some serious strain in modern times. People stopped using leaded-gas because it was causing measurable decreases in IQ for generations. I don't care how much you want to save a few dollars if it harms a lot of people and is difficult to measure. Everything else seems like a race to the bottom price so pushing the market in this manner doesn't bother me in the least. If you are running a server with others' data at stake, it seems like an obvious benefit for society on the whole to address the problem rather than serve some cheap datacenter operators.

some_random 3mo ago

I think it's a pattern that reinforces itself, as a nanny state develops it's opinion of it's people worsens and it's more willing to use force to compel them.

_factor 3mo ago
Right, the opinion shifting to the people being unworthy of uncorrupted data unless they’re wealthy enough to pay the artificial extortion price for integrity.
- some_random 3mo ago
  When you are used to thinking of citizens as children who need a nanny, all problems become bedtime shaped.
- CamperBob2 3mo ago
  What you're actually saying is that I shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of RAM my application needs. Instead, you are saying that someone with a gun should dictate this choice to me. That's what we mean when we say that people with your point of view are promoting nanny-statism. It amounts to infantilization of adult consumers and subsequent disempowerment. Occasionally such legislation can be justified, as when genuinely hazardous products are involved, or products whose use involves wide-ranging externalities, but usually not. People can and should be educated -- and expected -- to make their own decisions about things like whether they need ECC RAM.
  - etbe 3mo ago
    How do YOU propose doing this when most computer "experts" have never used ECC RAM and when it's only available in high end specialist systems that aren't on sale in regular computer stores? I think my knowledge of the topic is pretty good but I learned from this discussion that almost all AMD CPUs support ECC RAM and you apparently just need a motherboard to match. When accompanying people who were buying "gamer" PCs (after they rejected my recommendation for a second hand workstation grade computer with ECC RAM) I never witnessed store staff saying "hey you could get a motherboard with ECC support".
    - CamperBob2 3mo ago
      It's simply none of my business whether or not someone does the homework to understand what kind of RAM they should buy. I bothered to inform myself; they can, too.
      - _factor 3mo ago
        Next up. CPUs that will spit out the wrong calculations 1/1M times. You’ll have to pay more for the enterprise version to get uncorrupted processing. The spare traces cost 5 cents, but we can charge 20% more for the privilege instead. Just because you can allow it, doesn’t mean you should. I don’t want to live in a world where you need a PhD to avoid being scammed by increasingly sophisticated ploys. Data isn’t free anymore and the right questions are becoming harder to ask.

inigyou 3mo ago

How is it unnecessary. Australia has tons of laws about faulty products. All developed countries do

lightedman 3mo ago
[flagged]

adrian_b 3mo ago

This would be a consumer protection law like any other such law. Forcing the vendors to sell only products that do what they are advertised cannot be considered in any way as "forcing unnecessary things upon people". Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time and you have no idea when that happens. Originally, any IBM PC or compatible had memory error detection. All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro". So they removed memory error detection support from the Pentium chipsets (Intel Triton), so that this would remain a marketing feature exclusive to the "Pro" Intel products. Obviously the removal of this feature from "consumer" products was done without any price reduction, which made happy also the memory vendors, because this trick increased their profits. So in the next years this market segmentation method became the "standard" business practice, preying on the naivety of most computer users. A consumer protection law should force that any computer or motherboard must support ECC, which adds a completely negligible cost. The end users may buy non-ECC modules, if they choose so, but non-ECC modules should be sold like cigarettes, with a visible advertisement that using such modules may cause unpredictable errors in your computer.

flaunf221 3mo ago
> Any computer without ECC memory is a computer that does not compute from time to time So are the computers with ECC memory. It's not an absolute protection either.
- graemep 3mo ago
  Seatbelts and working brakes are not an absolute protection either, but i still want them.
lightedman 3mo ago
"All this problem of the computers without ECC memory has been created by some evil Intel employees, who have conceived around 1994 a scheme for market segmentation between "Pentium" and "Pentium Pro"." I hate to break it to you but the computer I had in the 80s didn't come with ECC. Non-ECC computing was a thing WELL BEFORE Intel tried to think of market segmentation. Revisionist history is not welcomed here.