rustyhancock

> The free history window limits access; it does not automatically delete older content.

This is mental you mean you keep hold of my photos and messages and I can only see them if I pay a subscription?

They certainly do.

Regression tests?

I think people are assuming the worst but AIs most helpful contribution beyond churning out code is explaining the code base.

Who knows if they will do a good or bad job that's down to the engineers and not the tools imo.

It says "legacy" code.

Legacy code is typically a euphemism for old unmaintained code, no one knows how it works so it can be edited, and it probably doesn't align with current work practices.

Not to say a rewrite is necessary right, but avoiding rewrites of working code is how we ended up with more COBOL code than COBOL programmers in 2026.

Were past what I could confidently answer (if I'm wrong hopefully someone corrects me) but I'm not sure I follow, if the BH grows it would encompass what we see as nearly smeared over it's horizon.

There's also surprising results around what the external gravitation field appears to be for an object.

I.e. no matter how mass is distributed behind the event horizon externally it looks like the spherically symmetric Schwartzchild metric.

That has implications for what will emit gravitational waves.

Eithway, smeared over the horizon but never crossed and crossed the horizon externally look the same from a gravity perspective.

Both have finite time falling in to the singularity. If you use a point test particle Newton and GR agree on that finite time.

That's proper time I.e. the infalling particles wristwatch time.

In GR, external observers would never see the infalling particle cross the event horizon but that's a coordinate artifact. If using our wrist watch time for that particle.

One of the most remarkable aspects of physics is that Newtonian gravity calculations are quite spot on for all the parts of black holes layfolk consider important.

1. Both predict the same critical radius, now called the Schwarzschild radius.

2. Both predict a central singularity with formally infinite density in idealised collapse.

3. Both predict exactly the same finite time to fall into the singularity under equivalent idealised conditions.

4. Both give the same equation for radial free fall, using different definitions of time.

What GR added was meaning to these things (and of course precise calculations outside of very idealised scenarios and symmetric conditions).

Why couldn't a privacy focus coined, like Monero, be a stablecoin?

You don't need to see where the coins are and move to promise $1 of going for every coin.

Because this isn't beginner friendly it's a new micro Emacs and those are standard libreadline/emacs bindings.

But this proves the point, a simple rule becomes 3 rules immediately.

Depending on the housing market a property price could rise that much while still under mortgage and not everyone pays mortgages off in term.

The fundemental issue with tax law imo, is that tax lawyers write it and the spend years in the dark offering their services to bypass it.

It would be like there being a category of specialist lawyers who openly offer hidden options to murder people.

It really is quite bizarre in my opinion.

I think it's a good idea when there is no CVE and a don't fix status.

Before this practice in general you simply released the exploit and see if enough chaos triggers a fix.

Looks like the website offers an APK.

But not all SMS are text messages for the user.

Is it surprising? Indexing for search is the backbone of Google's business model.

It's why if you search a practical task you will often see results link to specific parts of a video.