Not a bad theory actually. None of the stuff they have done to distract from the files has been without other purpose, but that is how it is done. You have a backlog of things you want to do ranked by unpopularity, and you try to only do one of them when you are being grilled over a worse one already. I'm sure it is down to a science and probably has a name.
When you say should hav, do you mean in the legal sense, or that you agree with such laws? I can't fathom being ok with any book being banned, but usually when I cannot understand a perspective I'm missing something pretty big. So I'm actually asking, not trying to start a pointless Internet debate.
The arguments for and against end up similar to those for and against banning drawn or AI generated depiction of csam. No actual children are harmed, it's artistic expression, moving the topic out of sight won't solve it, and any ban will also catch works that speak out against sexual abuse. On the other hand any such content risks playing into pedophilia fetishes (and some content simply does so very openly), and so far research is (very lightly) in favor of withholding any such content from "afflicted people" rather than providing a "safe outlet". Though this is debated and part of ongoing research
I think one additional objection to AI generated depictions is that photo-realistic AI generated content gives plausible deniability to those who create/possess real life CSAM.
And it would make authorities waste time finding the real csam to investigate or mistakenly investigating AI csam (under the hypothetical that AI csam is decriminalized).
I deliberately didn't want to get into that. It's not as if my opinion makes much of a difference anyway. But I do want us to be consistent, and I want as little as possible to be decided by "I know it when I see it" judges.
Yes, that is where I get stuck. Of there was a deterministically harmful book, like the play ,"the king in yellow", which drove every reader violently mad, then I would want it banned. There are unquestionably books and ideas that are statistically harmful to the society most of us want to live in. I just don't trust anyone to be the arbiter of what gets included in that category. But I live in a low trust society, so maybe it is a solvable problem?
Doesn't the lack of a flat memory model make a genral os difficult? The amiga1000 had far less processing power and about the same memory, with no mmu, but that memory model was flat. Did you have to do weird things to work around it?
The memory model is flat enough. The problem with the memory is, you only have about 200kB traditional RAM. But then, you have 8MB of PSRAM. But it requires strict 4-byte alignment, and is noticeably slower.
What makes traditional OSs difficult on this platform, is the lack of memory protection. But I am a simple man, I am not writing an OS, all I wanted was a usable shell and an apps installer, so I made that work.
Things change when the underlying assumptions change. Memory protection is mostly useful for multitasking, but traditional multitasking isn't always needed when your entire app starts faster than Windows can minimize a program.
What makes general OS difficult on a SoC is usually the lack of hardware virtual<->real RAM address translation accelerator, the MMU.
I guess it's not that important if developers had no raw pointer access so that object can be anywhere dynamically assigned(Java!!! also JavaScript and all interpreted langs). But basically all desktop OS apps are written in C and they always want single consistent virtual addresses to jump around in and none of apps work without the hardware dynamic translation.
C semantics account for segmented storage, that is why two pointers holding the same bitwise address are not considered to point to the same object, when they are derived differently.
It seems like you are suggesting it is lamentable that a group of people with the analytical intelligence to create a technology that has changed the world, don't have the social intelligence to be irrational when that is called for? Shouldn't we instead hate the game itself and lament that leaders can't behave rationally? In my more frustrated moments I wonder about a world following a disease that eliminated all neurotypical people.
Knowing the difference between a think tank and experts might be hard without some rudimentary knowledge to spot nonsense? I don't know, actually asking. It seems to me that the primary skill we need in our leaders is that of spotting experts talking within their field and actually listen to them while ignoring others. The primary trait, which is even more important, is character so that they act on what they here in our best interests instead of their own.
That's one way. I'm not certain that's the way you'd project did it, hard to say without looking at the pipeline. But there are N64 "matching decompilation" projects that do it exactly the way you propose.
reply