For better or for worse, this is nothing new. It is a symptom of the fact that the FSF and other FOSS organizations have displayed a fantastic failure of technical leadership for over 3 decades. The political leadership has not been bad, but if you go back and dig through the history of open source you will see that there have been multiple repeated failures by the supposed thought leaders to provide the equivalent level of technical excellence that is required to compete.
Making the lives of developers of free software easier has rarely if ever been on the list of priorities for many of the core projects.
Using public funds to teach students proprietary software or to force them to use proprietary software has always seemed undesirable to me, however if there isn't free software that is a competitive alternative (weasel words) it seems hard to argue this point. I might even say that there is a more fundamental level which is that teacher's need to accept documents formatted in an open font in addition to proprietary fonts.
I switched to having only a single old phone with no apps and no sim on airplane mode as a clock in the bedroom. It makes it much easier to get going in the morning (as in a whole 30-40 minutes faster).
I have all my sounds and notifications disabled, and my phone is always on do not disturb. Family and close friends are the only ones who can get through the wall of silence and actually ring my phone. This works very well for me. It might take some adjusting, but being able to control bottom up attention signals so that they are meaningful again is surely worth it for many people.
"Deal with" == "Not blow up" == "No RUD" in the event of a single engine failure.
Manned space flight kind of has this kind of important additional requirement that things like ICBMs don't, which is that they can't just "go up" the have to come back down and not end in a ball of fire.
Ah ok, this sort of clarifies the issue, which is that you can't really run more engines at lower thrust, and if you deal with the tank pressure issues from S8 then I imagine it should be able to go down on 2 engines alone without catastrophic issues.
With respect to failure on ascent, I imagine in that case they just send up another starship and transfer in orbit (coming down has always been the hard part).
For both SN8 and SN9 my brain is screaming at me "surely they need more than 3 engines?!" Is the ultimate expectation that the engines will never fail, because it sure seems like they can't deal with losing even a single engine. I'm sure this is completely incorrect given that the issue for SN8 was tank pressure.
However bad people think X11 is, the engineering decision (or more likely lack of any intentional design decisions beyond the initial extremely narrow use cases?) to "replace" a huge portion of its functionality with windowing toolkits is a disaster for open source. I have written about this before, but the amount of waste and rework that it induces is completely unsustainable. If you want to see another generation wasted in the bazaar then stick with wayland. Wayland is very good at the use case it was developed to serve, which is fast booting systems for automobile backup cameras. Everything beyond that is at best an afterthought. Forcing dbus on everyone to replace xlib is like chopping off your legs because you heard that you can run faster with the new carbon fiber prosthetics -- it will work fine on a track, but the second you try to go hiking off the trail with boulders you will fall and break your skull.
Singer foot pedal sewing machine style power for electronics would be one possibility. Of course those would have to be scavenged too given the lack of skilled blacksmiths these days.
The reason why tools like Protégé have not been sufficiently developed is because of infighting in the academic ontology community in addition to the reasons listed by the author. It has set the whole community back at least 5 years.
Hilarious. This is not something that employees and engineers have any control over, and framing it like this is passing the buck. Furthermore, user privacy is a fundamental top down engineering decision, not something that any individual can "do better on."
Someone at Elastic didn't do the math on this. Amazon can easily fund developers, they just didn't because they didn't have to. Now that the gorilla has been enraged woe to the thing that pissed it off. We'll see if amazon actually contributes to the new fork. The fact that amazon is in a better position to make money off of open source software is part of the calculation that startups should be making if they are writing open source software, especially if their moat is a proprietary shim that any of the big providers could rewrite in a month if they cared. Adding a rider to your open source that says "oh, and only the original authors at this one company are allowed to implement those shims" may play well with the HN crowd, but it isn't open source anymore.
I will also note that is clearly not enough competition in the cloud provider space, if there were more competition then elastic might be able to make money from the platform providers by implementing ES for each platform as you suggest.
I wish there was a sane way to bootstrap powershell without having to use an existing binary release. It is not surprising thought, you can't bootstrap bash using .net core either.
Well this vindicates my years of keeping policykit and all that other nonsense off my systems (sadly haven't found a way to zap dbus). The less code you have the less opportunities there are to screw something up.
For context, if Texas goes for Biden, then the 538 model predicts some amusing things.
1. The next most likely state that Biden could win is South Carolina at 25%.
2. The next most likely state that Trump could win is Ohio at 28%.
3. Biden would have the same chance of winning Mississippi as Trump would have of winning Iowa, 21%.
Solid work, but I find it quite concerning that there appears to be no discussion of potential false positive detections of other species beyond those specifically targeted. The research is still in a very early phase, and `wing-beat frequency, and/or other factors` means they are thinking about it a bit. If I deploy one of these I want to know how many friendly or benign insects I'm going to be killing.
Fantastic. I watched this last night with my parents and we immediately wanted to know more about the decade long production history. This piece has more detail than I ever hoped for, and should probably be the basis for a production section on the (currently rather sparse) Wikipedia page [0].
Buried in the wiki page for YBCO is a note that REBCO is a synonym of sorts. The superconducting tapes that are discussed in the talk thus would seem to be YBCO.
This happened after the invention of the printing press as well. Pamphlets and broadsides recounting (often fictitious) atrocities committed by protestant against catholic and catholic against protestant were circulated widely before and during the 30 years war. We figured out how to prevent that from happening again with print media. We don't have to start from scratch with digital media, but it sure feels like no one is paying attention to what happened last time.
If you have never contributed to a properly managed GPL codebase, you might be surprised the kinds of things you will be asked to do. More it the point, it most certainly isn't a right that you can contribute however you want to whatever project you want. Projects have constraints. Some people can _never_ contribute to Emacs because of the other code bases they work on (e.g. Chez Scheme). If you happen to be one of the folks who can, then in a sense, it is a privilege that reflects your freedom from other constraints.
I might translate this to "If you don't understand what it's for, don't use it for what you think it might be for." Things like this exist, and they are exactly as absurd and dangerous as this, but they aren't for people who don't know what they are doing, they are for people who know exactly what they are doing. It is like a booby-trapped burial site where only the priest are supposed to be able to get in without getting crushed by boulders or impaled on spikes. Unfortunately most code doesn't come with a sign that says "never call this function unless you know exactly how many C level executives are going to be up all night when you do." Engineered safety controls tell you that some things should be obscure and hard to figure out so that people who don't know what the are doing don't accidentally destroy something. On the other hand this prevents knowledge transfer and effective communication, but if it is not obscure some idiot will set both the `--i-know-what-i-am-doing` and the `--i-accept-full-legal-resonsbility-for-the-consquences-of-running-with-this-enabled` flags AND do it in a shell script. This article is spot on, and I have come to think of people who have developed this mindset as having a kind of selective lack of curiosity, say, defensive disinterest -- they see a system that they don't understand, identify that it appears to be dangerous, leave it bloody well alone, and possibly leave a note telling others to do so as well. Those in the know hopefully appreciate when the defensively disinterested warn others off, and as in this thread, take the opportunity to educate about the potentially not completely insane use cases for such things.
Any approach to sharing and collaborating around a git repository that requires some convention inside that repository seems fundamentally broken to me. I understand why people want to do it that way -- self describing artifacts are quite handy. Having something like fossil that can live inside a git repo itself is a big plus, for some workflows. I would be shocked if the linux kernel tree ever has a project.json file added to it. All the identifiers you need are already there in the commit hashes, why create another layer of complexity inside the repo itself?
I just wanted to record for posterity that after 14 years of reading it as fomit frame pointer this is the post where I finally realized that it is -f omit frame pointer. What are are fomit pointers and what do they do!? Well now I know.