kmacleod

The mass of unneeded cars will be at the periphery. The equivalent of taxi stands will have needed cars within reasonable distance.

Back in the PRT days we simply planned to store 1-2 vehicles in-station waiting for walk-ups, and if a drop-off comes in they just push out the waiting vehicles and they circle back. The efficiency remains crazy supportive of that model vs empty buses or trains.

I work in software deployment for large orgs. I use this technique to optimize. "How can I provision or deploy this with one package install, and launch instance." Typically take multi-page or multi-step deployments down to fully automated.

I discovered this recently as I tested an old idea I had to allow a dynamic language to use a C++-like vtable instead of an inline cache (like Objective-C or JavaScript does). It turns out modern CPUs predict an inline cache hit/miss result much better than always incurring the cost of the fetch in a vtable lookup.

Atom kinda does. Atom is a paged format, so a publisher can publish their entire history in their Atom feed and only the most recent page gets redownloaded to see new entries as they are added.

Possibly very much like Usenet. In the 80s there was a distributed "Slack-like" (for lack of a better description) distributed BBS network called Citadel (still some sites around now Internet based).

I wrote a UUCP clone and UseNet gateway for CitNet and made it available through a Citadel BBS "newsreader" to callers.

"uccico unidel ken bitsko macleod" still brings up some results[0]

[0] https://groups.google.com/g/alt.bbs/c/QFvfoxxONGU

Small nit, as a legal vehicle, the constitution allows itself to be entirely replaced.

If your editor has a wiki mode (like Emacs' org mode) then maybe nothing. If not, then Obsidian is your browser and your editor is your editor. For example, git syncing between Android and desktop isn't working well for me, so I edit directly in github UI and browse in Obsidian. The fact that Obsidian works exactly like that is one of the biggest benefits of Obsidian.

I've created and managed five distributions for two companies. I've found RPM to have slightly easier tooling across the whole stack, from developers building individual RPMs/specs up through building and managing 1000s of RPMs across multiple releases. The Fedora build model makes a great reference and source of tools for spinning your own distributions.

My Tesla FSD v14 will wait for any pedestrian stepping or approaching stepping into the road.

As a district, aren't you also able to work with Google to enable research and educate modes in addition to the "give me the answer" modes?

The technologies I’d like to see tracked include post-scarcity economics, resource-based distribution, and needs-based allocation systems.

Not sure where you're getting your information from.

My FSD (v13.2) has driven unmapped roads, including gravel roads, hills, narrow roads, and switchbacks, in the backwoods of Tennessee. From watching the display, it clearly identifies the road features and navigates them.

I'm building a community site DevOptimize.org: The Art of Packaging[0] for this type of content. Would be glad to host with an interested editor(s). Near-term roadmap includes wiki editing, currently in git.

[0] https://devoptimize.org/

The Free Software Foundation (FSF), as the author of the GPL and LGPL licenses, maintains that any software running in the same process space qualifies as "linked" under the terms of these licenses. This includes dynamic and static linking, plug-ins, loadable modules, and, in some cases, even interpreted code.

However, some developers who use GPL licenses interpret these requirements differently and permit certain uses that the FSF does not. A notable example is the Linux kernel, which allows proprietary kernel modules under specific conditions.

For proprietary software authors, the best-case scenario is having to convince a court that the license they accepted, by redistributing GPL-licensed software, permits linking without the obligation to disclose their own source code, as otherwise required by the license.

If it helps any, at two companies I was responsible for ensuring that all FOSS was made available to customers in an easily re-buildable, re-imageable way alongside our proprietary binaries.

Permissibly licensed software does not require you to provide sources or the changes to it.

Copyleft licenses require the source, including changes, to be provided.

The original purpose of copyleft is roughly the "right to repair". When you buy a product: you receive the necessary source, build instructions, and tools in some cases, to update and replace the software you received. The use of copyleft software passes those requirements on through proprietary users.

Note that one can still build a proprietary product as long as all the copyleft pass-through software can be modified and replaced on the product.

Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical, and myself, among many, "sell" GPL software that are used by others as part of their proprietary products.

Each of those, and the customers, are required to make the source they received (not their own proprietary source), including changes, available to those that receive the software (thus indirectly back to the public and the authors). AGPL is similar but includes the case of providing sources for products used in Internet services.

I may be misunderstanding, but I'm not sure I want a "remote desktop" where every process runs on the remote.

I want the original promise of X, where I choose where apps run and they are displayed locally:

• Run CAD circuit layout app on Pro server.

• Run Adobe Premiere on GPU server.

• Run distributed `make` on build cluster.

And of course, I want to be billed in resource-seconds, not per hour of a host made available to me.

https://DevOptimize.org - The Art of Packaging

There isn't a site that collects all packaging practices and how-tos in one organized collection. Now there is.

RPM, Deb, IaC, Chocolatey, optimizing packages, build tools, repo strategy, file system usage, and more.

Using the turn signal will nudge it to change lanes.

Just a data point, no argument:

My 2025 Tesla stops for road work flaggers spinning their signs from "Slow" to "Stop".

This issue here, correctly, is that it should come to a stop for 1) a bus flashing red, 2) with or without stop signs, 3) on an undivided road. Or, in our automated future, at least come to a crawl like FSD does now when entering a parking lot or pedestrian likely location.

Just for currency: I can't hop in the back of my 2025 Tesla while FSD drives. It has an interior camera now. It complains if I'm looking outside my window too long.

I'd prefer a blame-free NTSB investigation. It was a fault. Find the root cause, fix it, carry on.

You're correct, they can still ground a fleet, but there doesn't also need to be a prosecution.

Not really. The rise in autonomous production is going to match a rise in autonomous repair and maintenance.

The packaging model of distribution is ubiquitous. Every distribution does the same thing just using different control files and tools. The differentiation between distributions is all in their packaging policies and platform decisions. In a loose way Unix (SysV, HP, AIX) started packaging before Linux but Linux said "Every project is its own package" and ran with it. The de-facto "Download release; apply patches; configure; make; make install; collect files" is present in every distribution package. Everything up through deployment is the same pattern across all distributions.

How do you get yours to drive into a parking lot and park correctly? My HW4/v13.2.8 gets indecisive and ignores lines when getting to a destination. I always have to disengage before I can use parking mode.

We implemented a low-power wireless sensing device on a microcontroller using asynchronous coroutines in C to replace eight state machines. It was a dream. Every operation process was clearly "linear" in readability while overlapping radio frequency hopping, sensor power-up/down sequencing, sense state, transmission, firmware update, etc. All while going into low-power mode until the next event to process.

Voyage from Yesteryear (1982), James P. Hogan is my favorite. Essentially, yes, the robots can do better once shown but people create because it's enjoyable and, where desired, robots produce copies or maintain. The robots in this case have also been instructed to encourage human leadership and stay out of the way of it.

When I did the pre-2020 deep-dive I found the studies to be uniformly about the mechanics of the mask (hole size and particle size) and therefore the conclusions uniform on that front.

It was only after 2020 that any studies were done on effectiveness in use. The results are a lot more positive there. However, it was still difficult to do controlled studies so the results aren't as strong as one would like.

While true for the most part on spending, the deficit arises because we lack a rule requiring revenue to match spending, and we can't agree on what constitutes a fair balance of responsibility for that revenue.