nullifidian

[deleted to avoid potential misinformation]

I should have converted it to $' ', yes. It was posix shell compliant this way tho. (probably written when I knew more python than bash).

>installing many packages

The issue is HOW MANY. This simple utility is in the 100-200 range, Zed editor is in 2000+ range. C/C++ software you find in distros is not only stabilized by the unstable/testing queue, which language repos don't have and don't plan to have, but also has 5-10x less dependencies on average.

I would rather check urls with the following method:

  echo -e -n "https://іnstall.example-clі.dev" | python -c 'exec("""import sys, unicodedata\nfor ch in sys.stdin.read():\n  try:\n    print (ch, " ", unicodedata.name(ch))\n  except ValueError:\n    print ("codepoint ", ord(ch))\n""")'

instead of putting my trust in the hundreds of crates in this tool's Cargo.lock not having a supply chain attack.

>Chechnya

So they invaded their own internationally recognized territory. Wonderful. By that standard Ukraine invaded Donbass after they declared themselves independent of Ukraine.

>Syria

Even more outlandish claim, considering they were invited by the government. Whether the west considered the government illegitimate or not didn't matter.

>Moldova >Georgia

in both conflicts in protection of a minority, on whose territory a larger state laid claim using Soviet drawn borders and dissolution of the USSR. Since the Ukrainian conflict started I observed lots of enthusiasm for Soviet borders on the side of Russia's detractors, which were often drawn with territories assigned as a form of favoritism, simply because communist leadership in Moscow had better a relationship with the communist leaders of one of the ethnicities in question. That way historic Armenian land of Artsakh was assigned to Azerbaijan for example -- the recent ethnic cleansing outcome of that is well known.

I've been using "quasi-monopoly".

If there had been something like this standardized in Markdown from the start, it might have had a chance for wide adoption. Right now, learning to see and use LaTeX math as easily as more ASCII-like notation is just more convenient since it is widely adopted (in GitHub, in VS Code, etc.). It's harder, but it also provides the added benefit of maintaining your LaTeX skills.

I think Google's Chrome team's choices of priorities bear a significant portion of the blame for this. They refused to implement MathML for the longest time, and even when it was implemented, it was partly done and financed by a third party. Without MathML, LaTeX-to-HTML JavaScript hacks became the norm, solidifying LaTeX as the standard even for non-typesetting use cases. Had MathML been implemented by Chrome early on, a more direct and easier translation from something ASCII-like to MathML would likely have been adopted.

>Nvidia would be willing to cut into its margin to provide

Why would that be optional on a top of the line GPU that requires it? NVIDIA has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about defining an extended ATX standard, that covers PSUs, and it would be optional in the product lines of PSU manufacturers. The 12VHPWR connector support in PSUs is already a premium thing, they just didn't go far enough.

>Because no PC power supply has a 24V rail

Servers with NVIDIA H200 GPUs (Supermicro ones for example) have power supplies that have 54 volt rail, since that gpu requires it. I can easily imagine a premium ATX (non-mandatory, optional) variant that has higher voltage rail for people with powerful GPUs. Additional cost shouldn't be an issue considering top level GPUs that would need such rail cost absurd money nowadays.

>which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment.

It obviously doesn't. That would mean the US Government can ban all foreign press, just by designating countries as "foreign adversaries". And "foreign adversaries" is a euphemism for "countries that don't submit". The SCOTUS just invented another exception to the absolutist interpretation.

>wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media

>were charged with failing to register as a foreign agent

This entire narrative together with the banning of Tiktok is wholly hypocritical, given the American media, tech, and NGO's influence/dominance around the world.

The moment someone achieved what the American entities have been doing around the world, the non-stop wailing of "foreign adversaries this, foreign adversaries that" started.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a country bordering Russia, the law requiring foreign-financed NGOs to register was declared to "stigmatize organizations that serve the citizens of Georgia" with accompanying travel bans for the authoritarian evil doers who passed said law by the US state department.

>What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

Because obviously changing the owner-editor of a media outlet has everything to do with their editorial policy. The SCOTUS just said that censorship is ok (and forcing the change of the editor is censorship, there is no doubt about it), as long as it's against another state's editorial preferences potentially having a significant audience in the country.

Tiktok algorithms could be considered a form of editorial position(be it foreign government influenced one, or just the type of content they elevate / not remove), and in this sense it is similar to banning a newspaper(which would obviously be censorship) -- journalists could publish in other newspapers. Therefore banning TikTok absolutely is censorship.

>This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control

This is literally like this, and done precisely due to the lack of control due to the illegality of overt/direct speech regulation, and the fears that China would elevate content that isn't in the interest of the US in the broadest sense, but that is still legal according to the 1st amendment. The US Government has tremendously more influence on the local/western platforms, and on people who work there. (There is already an appeals court decision about Biden administration overstepping in communicating with online platforms about what content they don't like). The logic goes "We can't regulate speech like we want to, order what we like and what we don't like, but at least we can remove/censor individual owner-editors that we suspect might harbor some harmful intentions. That means no owners from 'evil' countries". That's about it.