wyldfire

"We cannot launch our missiles unless both you and I agree!"

Re: the partial EAM from "Crimson Tide".

We've gathered decades of evidence in support of this, with commerce and trade supporting global peace.

Though, it's nice to see in this particular case that a near monopoly player gets unseated and creates room for innovation.

Yeah - especially if it could drop into existing framework laptop shells.

I tend to agree but you can't deny that the widespread use of LLMs means that codeberg will expend more resources overall for projects taking advantage of them. And its members have spoken. We might disagree about the conclusion they came to and even how they went about it but their stance is clear now so we might as well just move on.

> how this bug got through.

Simplest answer is that there's no representative test case in the test suite yet.

Unfortunately the problem of compiler testing is a very challenging one IMO. You can't test it exhaustively, or perhaps if you did write such a suite it would take longer to execute than is feasible.

> we all are just lucky enough that most messed up optimizations will break _something somewhere_ early enough to not get merged

Your compiler is only as good as the set of code people routinely use it on. Rust has exploded in popularity but it's still much less popular than C, C++.

You know that feeling when you work on a feature for weeks or months and then something comes along and the feature is no longer needed or the project is cancelled?

It's a pretty frustrating experience -- was it all for naught? Maybe it's useful to vent about it a bit.

Physics, or ... capital.

Look at the cryptocurrency and Bitcoin economies for an example. Instead of being a democratic mining economy where spare cycles are used, only companies which invest capital to find semiconductors from the latest process node combined with facilities and inexpensive electricity benefit from mining.

Only the next Standard Oil / Amazon / Google will benefit from the people-free economy.

Some of us in Texas are all too familiar with the problem of balancing load with generation, the risk of a cascade failure causing a slow restart.

During winter storm Uri, they did a duty cycle where we only had power available for ~6-12 hours at a time on the days it was available. This was apparently to avoid that very problem.

So far as I know, the obvious mitigations like winterizing NG generation and/or peering with neighbor grids have not been performed.

This is a false equivalence. "What constitutes appropriate humor" versus "Government silences dissent." Just because the Diabetes conference cited their code of conduct doesn't mean that's actually what this is about.

This is what people seem to get mixed up about the First Amendment to the US Constitution. These scientists were removed from the conference because they were highlighting the scientific role to push back against government censorship. Not because it wasn't germane to the conference, but in furtherance of the censorship itself. The US Government participated here indirectly via its chilling on scientific discourse.

Comments in this thread suggesting that "this is just some private actors" are mistaken. This is absolutely the consequence of the Trump HHS policymakers decisions.

It's not like the article is indirectly related to the subject of the conference. It is critical of the government, but not in the "human rights abuses of this administration threaten us all" way (though even that seems reasonable to discuss).

Is it your position that if an article is critical of a world government it must not be discussed at a scientific conference? Or even "you should expect to get ejected from a conference if you criticize the host government"? Because believe it or not, that's not been a problem in the USA prior to Trump. And it runs contrary to how science should work.