Propelloni

Sorry, I'm not in the USA. And while the current US government is pretty bad, it is not a dictatorship. Protests like the "No Kings" are unimaginable in China, just consider the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Nobody complains about China investing in its private industry, all wealthy nations do that. Everybody complains that China is a dictatorship that a) treats its people like shit, b) exploits these shitty conditions to gain global market advantage with state-owned companies, and c) keeps foreign companies from exploiting it, too.

Obviously it is more complex than that, but in a nutshell it's part butt-hurt and part amalgamation of state and private enterprise that does not mesh well with classic liberal ideas of freedom and human dignity.

Which, incidentally, is the software they compare their offering to. The only Adobe software they mention in the comparison is Adobe Premier Pro.

And some things got super hard to do, e.g. sequence. I guess it is sorted now, but either way, I wouldn't want to go back.

[flagged]

I'm an introvert, too. I have no troubles participating in, or leading, or even fighting in group activities. Does it exhaust me? Yes, it does. I literally feel physical pain if I have to stay in company for more than maybe an hour. But value is created through interaction, not some process, paper stacks, or a lone wolf hiding in the closet, so I learned a long time ago how to communicate effectively, give and take feedback, organize tight meetings, and facilitate decision making.

I'm actually a bit tired of introverts hiding behind their disposition. You can do something about it, and it's more than complaining.

EDIT: Sorry, that was more rantish than I wanted. But I'll leave it here anyway.

Like I said elsewhere, virtue signaling is moving the Overton window. It works pretty well for the alt-right, so we know it is working.

Reading the press release shows me that Spain and Brazil are aware that this is a hard problem. They are especially aware that a nation, or two nations, alone cannot solve it, thus they suggest a "global registry", which is basically a "abolish tax havens" again. Let's see how far we get this time, I wish them all the best.

Not to mention that those subcompacts of today are as large as a compact car of 30 years ago.

What was the old chestnut? A traffic jam is a highway at 100% capacity? Something like that, can't remember who said it. Niels Pfläging perhaps?

You are talking policy, I'm talking material science.

> It seems the network of roads built in the 40s, 50s and 60s just can no longer be done efficiently.

Of course they can, we have not lost that capability. It's not a matter of efficiency but effectivity. Road constructions of the 1960s are not effective for 21st century traffic demands. Today's level of traffic far exceeds the anticipated level of traffic at the time of construction. Germany sees this all the time, esp. with regards to bridges. Maintaining a road or a bridge to be effective at supporting the original traffic levels is easy but under today's load would require constant maintenance to not deteriorate immediately. Those constructions need to be upgraded which is hard to impossible to do in situ.

Let's take a well-known construction in Germany, the Leverkusener Brücke an der A1. It was originally built in the 1960s for a traffic level of 40,000 cars (and trucks) per day. It was upgraded and refurbished over the decades (meaning almost constant construction work happening) to a level of 100,000 cars per day. It wasn't enough, in 2016 about 120,000 cars crossed the bridge per day. At the same time trucks got about 30 % heavier from 1960 to 1990 and we all know that passenger cars got heavier, too.

So the whole bridge was replaced, which took 7 years, ending in 2024. During that time traffic was rerouted over two nearby bridges in Cologne and Düsseldorf. The Cologne bridge was so badly damaged by the additional load that it had to be partially closed down and now is up for refurbishment or, maybe, replacement. Network effects at work ;)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is: we are actually better at building stuff than our predecessors but the demands put on our constructions are much, much higher. I don't dare to say if our capabilities have grown as much as the demands require.

Yeah, it is a medical device and has been approved as such by the UK standard body. Not "Europe" by a far stretch and certainly not EU.

The hostility is not geared towards AI, they are just dumb tools, but sloppy and stupid reporters. AI is enabling those stupid reporters. The linked report basically says in typical AI blathering (paraphrase) "you use strcpy(), strcpy() is known to cause buffer overflows if not bounds checked, thus you have buffer overflow bugs"

Obviously, the logic doesn't hold. Anyway, asked to provide a specific line in a specific module where strcpy() is not bounds checked, the response is "probably in curl.c near a call to strcpy()." That moved from sloppy to stupid pretty quickly, didn't it?

And there are dozens if not hundreds of these kinds of reports. Hostility towards the reporters (whether AI or not) is justified.

TIL that emergency lanes are not a universal thing.

And sheer luck.

Yeah, but those cases hinged on the fact that the ad company tried to hire the actor first, thus demonstrating intent of using this actor. Had they hired Nearly Identical Voice directly they probably would not have lost.

Person A will have the rights to their image, person B to theirs. If person A looks like person B, person B still has no say in what person A does with their image and vice versa. Seems obvious to me.

I guess you worry about stuff like person A looks like celebrity person B and sells their image for, say, frosty frootloop commercials. As long as A is not impersonating B, ie. claiming to be B, I can't see a problem. "Hi, my name is Troy McClure, you may know me for looking like Serena Williams." I guess it will be the decade of the doppelgänger agencies, like in Double Trouble ;) [1]

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087481/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1_tt_8...

Strong disagree. University is not overrated for computer science, maybe it is overrated for vocational training. Because what we are discussing here is not computer science, but craft.

Anyway, the students grokking computer science are usually the better craftsmen, too.

You sure you mean Barrack Obama, the 44th president of the USA? He's on record for disallowing this explicitly. The Republicans got quite a knot in their panties over it, too [1].

[1] https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/terrorism/pol...

Yes, our company would benefit from that. We deal with large swathes of legal documents and construction plans and automatic verification, validation, and categorization would be useful. Our own efforts are concentrated on ML-based object detection and identification, which is more important to us than above mentioned functions.

We are not large enough to do both, but German enough to not consider outsourcing this to a cloud service ;)

Original title: Detection of pure warm-hot intergalactic medium emission from a 7.2 Mpc long filament in the Shapley supercluster using X-ray spectroscopy

My first contact with literate programming was through Haskell, which has built-in support for it. It was great for learning a new language and a new domain. I abandoned the practice for day to day work, but occasionally return to it if I have to unlock a new domain. To me, it is a lot like rubber-ducking.

Like an very old dude once said: "No one is willfully evil."

And efistub is exactly what the GP wants. Reserve rEFInd and its ilk for Snapper setups.

I'm not going to argue, because I think you are right. It's still fun to think rigorously about some random statement ;)

Yes, this will suck. No argument from me.

However, I disagree with your conception of Islam as a state, even if it was explained to you by Muslims. The strongest argument I can build from your statements is that, according to the reference to the end of the Sunni Caliphate in 1923,

p1) only Sunnis are Muslims, and

p2) the Caliphate is unique, and

p3) the Sunni Caliphate of 1923 is the original one, thus

c) it was the state of Islam.

We can disprove all of these premises. p1) is obvious, there are more Muslim religions than just Sunnis. The earliest schism was the Sunni-Shiites split, happening immediately after the first prophet's death.

About p2), while I'm fuzzy on the details, I'm pretty sure that between the 900s and the 1900s there were at least 3 major, parallel Caliphates and also a bunch of smaller Caliphates. Geographically they were even sometimes overlapping. It might be interesting that the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire (the one in question) was a Hanafist (a Sunni splinter group) Caliphate.

On p3), the Sunni caliphate of 1923 was reestablished after a 300 year "hiatus" by the Ottoman Emperor to lay claim on Crimea. It had no representation besides a leader, the Sultan. Before the dissolution of the major Sunni Caliphate in the 1500s it relocated several times, from today's Syria to today's Iraq, to then and now Egypt. Thus we can say that the Caliphate had no continuous existence. We can furthermore say that the time the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was the Caliph, it was because it was a diplomatic ploy of the secular power of the Ottoman Empire.

Therefore, c) must be wrong. There are more Muslims than Sunnis, the Sunni Caliphate wasn't unique, and the Caliphate that ended in 1923 was not the original one.

A less philosophical counter-argument could be the vigorous infighting between different Muslim groups we see today. I'm curious how the war on Iran changes that, if at all.

I agree it is a non-issue. But the non-issue is a social one and thus the solution is not technology but giving feedback. A simple "Hi Greg, I noticed you opened our conversation with salutations and only send the salient topic after I replied. In the future, please send me the topic in the first message, too. I won't be offended. Thank you. Bob" usually suffices.

The acronym you are looking for is "PIN", a Personal Identification Number.

Fair enough. To me, simple and easy are not the same thing. Chess is a simple game that's not easy to play. In the same vein, to me, "take in less calories than you burn" is a simple concept, but not easy to do. It doesn't make the concept wrong, though.

No, the GP is correct. The solution is simple. Calculate your daily passive calorie requirement, take in less calories and/or up active calorie requirement. Simple.

Now, implementing this is hard or maybe impossible for many individuals, I'm not denying this. The solution is simple, but for some it is not easy to implement.