ecma

It's not clear to me if the author actually understands how staging works and how that affects the commands they suggest. They claim that stashing takes staged changes and then note that after stashing the working tree will be clean. That suggests the post is being dumbed down or the author is misunderstanding things.

Git guidance should almost always start with a brief introduction to the concepts you believe the audience doesn't know or fully understand. To begin with reset and not properly explain the index will just end up being confusing, especially with brief references to hard, soft and mixed resets later on!

Really? I'm not sure if this is bait or not, but 64b time_t extends the epoch over 200 billion years into the future. I figure we'll handle it in Linux 7.0 or 8.0 at the earliest :P

Thanks, I hate it. I'm a bit bemused about this bizarro case_N.h trickery. I'm also almost positive __COUNTER__ would be adequate and entirely remove the need for __LINE__ as suggested in the addendum which is likely to be quite large in any non-trivial source unit. I mean, something gcc this way comes I guess...

This puzzled me also. Perhaps it's been kicked down the road as an engineering problem and we'd end up with a hydrogen extraction system which is responsible for that part. We'd probably need to feed protons back in though...

The first paragraph of that question says 'address the possibility that a US company may have had spacecraft launched into orbit without the appropriate approval from the US government.'

This is a discussion of another offence against a different document and assumes the first offence against FCC regulations is valid. Be careful not to conflate the two, one causes the other.

I make heavy use of cardless cash via my bank's app when I need to visit an ATM. I haven't had my wallet with me for more than half an hour at a time this year.

That's a K&R (Kernighan and Ritchie) style function declaration. Compilers still support it but the version you'd be more familiar with (ANSI C style) has been standard since at least the late 80s IIRC. ANSI C was standardised in 1989 but that process had been in progress for something like 5 years beforehand.

Did you genuinely find it difficult to parse the comma delimited representation near the bottom of the article? Just curious. It seemed very natural to me, a minor variation on British style thousand separators.

Not sure what you mean by a sub-session but my perusal suggests an entirely new conversation key is negotiated by current participants when those participants change. The spec doesn't say anything about requiring everyone to be online but I think it's implied. It may be that not everyone has to be online at the same time (which would just delay the negotiation IIUC) which is interesting but I wonder what would happen if an offline participate rejoins and doesn't get a full transcript from when they were last online with the carrier. Sounds entirely possible for an IRC/XMPP carrier with people not using bouncers.

TFA gives two very disparate examples of documentation failures (basic use of the dock vs service management and the init system). What does the author want to write? A book in the style of the For Dummies series? Something more like the Windows Internals books? Both, everything in between? Some of those surely already exist...

Well it's definitely possible unless I'm a moron (correct me if I am). If you have the primes up to √n you can find all primes up to n because everything else will be composite of the primes you know already. This is basically what TFA is doing. What I was suggesting is that it would be cool if you could avoid defining rules explicitly for (3n+6), (5n+10), etc and have them appear from some feedback loop where we go from a sequence of primes up to n, to n^2, to n^4...

CSS4, let's do it.

The highlighting and counting is cool but isn't this just colouring prime numbered elements (off by one) by knowing the primes up to √n? Bit of a circular problem! (:

It'd be pretty cool if CSS could define new rules based on counters and calculated properties. Then you might be able to bootstrap from something small like "2 is prime" and discover the rest of the primes up to n. Is this sort of wizardry possible?

Agreed, something they should have a plan for but not too worrying to see it with a few caveats at this stage.

I actually wrote a comment in response to loeg elsewhere in the thread and lost it by refreshing (and then lost interest, hah!) on the subject of conversion. I think there are some interesting problems around introducing a new FS and having to build "migrations" into it from the start. Migration feels like an expensive (in time/effort) word and I'd be concerned about issues coming up when you need to rewrite chunks of your NOVA FS because the per-CPU region has to become larger and everything else needs to shift along. It wouldn't need to be a full rewrite since only some data would need to be moved but it still seems clunky.

As mentioned in another comment, it seems like the solution being put forward is to oversubscribed the per-CPU data region for 256 CPUs but I wonder how long until that turns out to be a bad assumption. Who knows, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe it's just out of scope for NOVA. One FS doesn't need to rule the world after all!

I would definitely expect a separate piece of hardware to be swappable without impacting on the rest of my machine. I can change/upgrade the CPU without breaking the north bridge or losing my RAID mapping so why should the data storage mechanism on my new NVMe device (which is where my mind leaps for NOVA) be any different?

What type of usage am I missing where losing/having to do an offline rebuild of your data would be acceptable during a hardware upgrade? NOVA seems to be aiming to address the recognised issue by overprovisioning (which I disagree with but such is life). I don't really understand your argument.