abstractbeliefs

30,000 split 50 ways is 800lbs per cow (270kg), seems not unrealistic.

Even if you halve the yield to 400lbs then it's only 100 cows

If you want a world where the data you present like this matters, seed it.

Even if google doesn't use it, the collective internet applying this kind of metadata makes the web fertile for non-LLM-scraping competitors to provide an alternative option.

Rolling over to google only ensures that they remain dominant, with a high bar for competitors, and driving them to use the same technologies.

Yes, 50% of shuttle losses were due to SRB failures (Challenger)

No open source, then I'm not playing.

I use Zim wiki for everything just now and I don't like it. I'm in the market for a replacement, and would even pay like with how Immich does it.

Unless the source code is available or you put it into legal escrow for when you go bust/abandon the software†, I will not invest my time and data into a system where I am entirely dependent on another organisation or service.

† And you will go bust or abandon the software before I die!

I think it's important to understand the early development.

It's true that you can (and always could) use avr-gcc and libc, but the core sale was what makes it not this.

The "locked in"/captured API and IDE were directly extensions of a language and IDE called Processing.

Processing overlaid an art-focussed layer on top of Java, providing a simpler API, and an IDE with just two buttons.

Arduino was based on this - the same IDE format, similar API conventions (just on top of C++), precisely to allow these same artists to move into physical installations and art.

Arduino was not designed initially to be so general, it was tool written by and for this specific group of people, so has opinions and handrails that limit the space to provide the same affordances as Processing specifically.

Arduino has long been fraught with governance and licensing issues, but at its core has been supported first and foremost by a community of keen amateurs and patient professionals teaching in their off time.

This is a reminder - never sell out your baby unless you're willing to see it squeezed for every penny, community be damned.

Magic/More Magic switch required.

ArchiveTeam is working on backing up selected channels/videos to the Internet Archive, where they can also be watched via their Wayback Machine. You can help them decide what is culturally or historically important enough to save.

ArchiveTeam generally is an interesting project I highly recommend people read about.

Their YouTube project can be seen here: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/YouTube

And you can learn how to get involved (by running a virtual machine appliance) here: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior

for what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the various right wing theories about the _cause_ and specifically the idea that there is intentional exploitation of the demographic shift, but it's not controversial that falling birthrates are leading to demographic change.

I'm not German and won't presume to say who is or isn't (or should be) "German", but this is absolutely something that needs to be grappled with by governments. A shift in population being "supplied" by birth vs. migration is recognised in many Western/more economically developed countries, and that also includes naturalised immigrants (and their descendants).

My personal belief is that the modern school of business thought is a form of tragedy of the commons: with every business optimising their extraction of wealth from people in isolation, individuals in the whole find the cost of living unsustainable and are increasingly living hand to mouth and feel they cannot afford or have the time to raise children. In this way, falling birthrates are an externality of modern economic doctrine. This is also true for immigrants, who are exploited for cheaper work, and as they naturalise fall into the same trap as being exploited for extracted wealth.

In my eyes, the resolution to falling birthrates is that governments need to reach for social and economic levers to reduce the predation of companies on individuals, as well as to increase the amount of flexible wealth that individuals have so they can choose to raise kids if they want.

I think that the idea that this is actually some kind of coordinated "great replacement" is deeply untrue and instead is a fulcrum to further distract, divide, and exploit people. If my belief on the root causes is true, however, governments must have the guts to reign in business, which does not prove to be popular in political circles. Instead, it is easy for governments to allow the political fringes to continue this narrative to "immigrant wash" discontent with life - rather than address the root of the problem (optimising for growth), they can announce "tough on immigration" measures that demonise marginalised groups who are politically inert themselves (immigrants, legal or otherwise, being much more restricted in their ability to vote and influence politics than established capital).

It's a statement of fact, which is neutral on its own.

Where it becomes a right wing talking point (or a discussion about the socio-economic future of a country) broadly comes down to how you present the causes, implications, and necessary actions.

The fact that many more-developed countries having shrinking native populations is a fact that governments must reckon with in some way, and salting the earth on discussing because one faction is trying to exploit it cedes the ultimate policy decisions to them.

I'm not sure that source code verification is such a problem. It feels like it's definitely easier to write code to solve a problem than to verify some code written by someone else is correct and fault free.

It's not one-or-the-other. You can achieve all that customisability without having to edit the code, while also leaving it as an option for those who want to take it further.

"Currently, the app isn’t open source, as I felt it didn’t need to be."

No open source, not selling me as a customer.

If you make your entire product about customisation, you're doing me a disservice to not let me adjust the code as suits my needs, asides from the ethical position on free software.

The very first line of the article states that this is a retrospective of the August '23 incident, hence the downvotes.

I don't know about this instance in particular, but the vertical scale in similar maps is often exaggerated to make it easier to differentiate the different floors.

At the cost of distorting elements with a vertical dimension, it means that all the wireframe layouts don't end up overlaying each other.

Forgotten not in the sense of lost knowledge, but more that the individual is not known proportionally to the importance of his work, or perhaps consistently when compared to his peers.

While specialists in his field know his work and his name (but not even everyone in software does), the public do not.

While your parents and friends see the dramatised exploits of Turing in films like The Imitation Game, or his face on the currency, the same is not said for Church.

Every field has it's public heroes, usually related to the stature of their work - Fleming and Jenner, Marconi, Ford, Bell. Turing.

Anyone will at least recognise these names, but not so for Church.

No free software no support. You don't have to merge it upstream right away, but publish it for others to study and use as permitted by the license.

It's not so funny, because this article was written at the time freenode was burning to the ground, and the article suggests that it would be very easy for everyone to move to libera if it turned out to be the better option.

And that it worked so well is the point of the article!

IRC is highly resilient because it's simple to set up, the clients and servers are free software and can be endlessly and independently configured to talk to each other, and it's light on resources - both server, client, and bandwidth.

I'm on terrible, legacy satellite internet (ie, not starlink, with 700ms-1.2s round trip times), and IRC is the only chat system that works fine.

It's a surprise, I'm a UK citizen living in a UK dependency and will shortly be returning to Great Britain, and I can't access it.

Huh!

You can do it in a virtual machine, and people frequently do. The software can't detect nor escape it.

Unrelated (seriously), there's also OARC, the online amateur radio club. It's on discord (boo, proprietary), but it's got some of the most exciting projects and a really young crowd. I'd highly recommend it.

https://www.oarc.uk/

Yes - the CFAA as a criminal issue requires "mens rea", the intention to commit a crime. Very few laws (such as involuntary manslaughter) have exceptions to this.

If you break someone's shit by accident, they can still sue you, and people should probably sue HP, but you can't try to have a prosecutor bring them to a criminal trial under the CFAA.

Gating access is compartmentalisation. If you're being brought onto, say, missile development, you absolutely will have to submit to both vetting (knowing who you are prior to access) and compartmentalisation (permitting access only to your relevant secrets throughout).

I'm not saying that just because you have some kind of clearance you will get access to everything, but it's part of the preconditions to your own relevant access.

You can say "poorly architected" all you want, but it's true. Military capability is frequently determined by software-implemented behaviours, not data you can plug into a generic public framework.

>19 year old developer with access would be a big security hole

It's true, they are. That's why militaries and defence companies go to great lengths to vet their staff and why even within vetted staff, sensitive material is compartmentalised to minimise the risk from any given individual. Even despite that, military secrets are still leaked on an all too regular basis.

The problem is that not all the secrets are so easily extracted - sometimes the design/software is the secret.

If you put all the design up for nuclear weapons but just kept the nuclear codes secret it's great that no one can fire ours, but people could implement the design on their own with different codes.

To use a more realistic example, consider air defence missile systems use to shoot down incoming missiles and drones. The secrets here aren't keys, it's software-driven behaviours including the approach to identify radar tracks as hostile or noise, identify when to commit a missile and how to target it, the code implicitly contains the vulnerabilities where the radar tracking is less effective and more evadable and how the system tries to mitigate this, etc.

When you take away all the secret behaviours, you quickly end up with not much more than just the drivers connecting the hardware to the logic, which isn't a lot of code that's driving the funding. How you set a missile tubes tilt and direction is trivial stuff and is mostly reused from old platforms that were funded decades ago.

Additionally, there is some talk about how this is kind of like security through obscurity. When it comes to things like weapons and other high-tech capabilities, security isn't only security against being owned, it's security against your opponent closing the technological gap. Unfair wars, where you have a significant tech lead on your opponent, means your population bleeds less.

My objection is:

> Your typical color TV effectively created "pixels" by their use of shadow masks and three separate beams.

It's true that almost all colour TVs are pixelated and have shadow masks and three separate beams, but it's got the cause and consequence the wrong way around.

The pixels are created by the phosphor dots, not the mask/tube design. It's possible to use this design without three tubes or the screen, strictly, but a consequence of this design suggests the optional addition of a shadow mask and additional tubes as a natural, later progression for improved performance.

I don't think that's quite how it worked.

The colour was created by different phosphors on the inside of the screen, there was nothing different about the electron beams. The number and pitch, the resolution, of these different phosphor dots determined the resolution of the screen.

The shadow masking was to prevent the beam for, say, the red phosphors sweeping blue/green subpixels when moving from one pixel to another, since it wasn't practical to turn the beam off and then back on once the steering coils had been changed. Steering was continuous, so without shadowmasks, you would illuminate on the neighbour subpixels you pass on the way.

You could have done it all with a single beam, if you really wanted, but it's not very practical - you'd need to sweep slower since you could only illuminate 1 subpixel at a time, it'd take much longer to to steer, illuminate at the right level, and move to the next with the right beam power selected.

when it's open source, let us know.

Too many companies have it on the roadmap and never deliver.

The details here about the funding situation - in particular terminating a raft of projects and a licensing change specifically to sell AGPL exemptions - doesn't paint a rosy picture.

It's weird to see "Needless to say, this is far from an ideal situation: we sent up distress flares loud and clear at the beginning of last year’s holiday update" followed by this further cutting down, a realisation of that distress, and in the next paragraph see "distinctly optimistic".

I expect to see a bunch of fundraising posts in the near future, and with things like the IRC bridges getting closed down (presumably for cost), it's hard to be bullish on Matrix.

Not at all! It's good to support your colleagues, but it's also considered good etiquette to state your relationship when creating new accounts to give praise like this.

While you're doing do innocently, because of the rewards of doing well on HN, it does happen there people create new accounts to illegitimately try to boost their ranking without saying so.

Being proactive in stating your interests is polite and transparent

I think you misunderstand. The comment you reply to I think acknowledges that there are problems with nuclear project management - they're saying that with that in mind, let's figure out how to do it better, to make nuclear projects less risky, more reproducible, and subsequently more commercially attractive.