akira2501

On the ISS they heat food by rehydrating it with hot water. A microwave is fairly wasteful of power and hard to properly isolate from generating interference.

> it looks like a research station that could have been on Earth.

It looks like a research station that was designed to be _maintained_ on Earth. Their sense of cleanliness, I feel, is going to cost them in labor and repairability in the long run.

So many integrated panels. A microwave? Plants out in the work area with no shielding and nothing to constrain waste from floating away?

Pretty cowboy lookin' up there.

> aren’t they incentivized to reduce the amount of large categories of content you’d find noxious?

No, they're incentivized to increase the amount of content advertisers find acceptable.

Plus, youtube isn't strictly watching, many people do make a living from the platform and these algorithmic controls are not available to them in any way at all.

> ditching them entirely

Which is why I implied that user oriented control is the factor to care about. Nowhere did I suggest you had to do this, just remove _corporate_ control of that list.

If you used those mailing lists often enough you had a kill file so you could filter out those who were intentionally disruptive.

I think the negative contribution from Github is the "gamification" of development. Stars, in particular, are emblematic of this problem, as it grants a measure of "apparent quality" yet it's not safeguarded in any way at all so now it just measures "apparent popularity."

The mechanisms you have to employ to be popular are almost diametrically opposed to those you have to do to write quality code.

> TfL’s ticketing system isn’t outsourced

The operation of it? Or the development of it? I'm seeing information that conflicts with this statement.

> and in London many people don’t drive and don’t have a driving licence.

My presumptions are rooted in the USA. For those that don't drive having a state ID card is still quite common. These always have barcodes on the back which would make them useful in POS like applications. You'll need a photo ID to cash a check, buy tobacco or alcohol, or when applying for most jobs. It's unusual here to not have one.

Is that also the case in the UK? Is there no similar system or demand for ID? Would those using it in this free application be less likely to have one?

Then make those free. We can't stand behind other poor implementations as an excuse to avoid appropriate levels of public service. What I'm trying to project is there's no reason to cast this as "people don't want poors riding trains."

Of course people want this. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Solve actual problems and stop giving contracts to people who abuse the public trust and effectively siphon tax money away from people who need it the most.

The level of argumentation here is bizzare. We can't use IDs because of privacy but we will give them unique smart cards? We can't let them use IDs because those cost money for historical reasons but we will pay a third party for a single use smart card?

This is why people don't engage with public service. It's absolutely punishing for no appreciable reason.

PKI and DNS are centralized and any of the _three_ major browsers rely on them and actively deny features if they are not present.

I mean, sure, packet routing is decentralized, and if you're a military operator, this might matter to you, if you're someone who wants a public voice it's not significant.

> "there are zero apples in the basket",

"There are zero apples on that apple tree."

You're inventing an abstraction that is less familiar than the reality. If you know apples go in baskets, you've probably picked them. Or that oranges just don't grow around here.

Writing is expensive. I always wonder if this is why you don't see zero expressed as often. Why bother? Once writing is cheap, you can explicitly enumerate the zeroes, not because they convey useful information, but because they add a check that you can now afford. "I didn't forget to count sheep. I counted and there were actually none."

Yet monopolized enough that this decentralization does not prevent deplatforming.

> Privacy nightmare

The current system doesn't do this somehow? You're taking _public_ transport. Presuming privacy from the operator to be a thing is odd.

> and disenfranchises those with no paperwork.

Then if they want free public transport they should get free papers. I'm not sure the goal of an "identityless public society filled with free rides" is at all worthwhile or even agreed upon to be good.

> can't stomach a poor person getting to ride the bus for free.

If you don't accurately measure ridership you can't accurately serve that ridership. You'll waste money on useless services and you'll waste peoples time by not creating necessary services.

The system needs to exist.

It probably doesn't need to be outsourced. We're well past the internet revolution and it's time for these core competencies to be reabsorbed by government departments. Or it's time for private companies to be held liable for their complete and total failures to serve the public.

Ideally it should just be a system that lets you scan your identification card or drivers license. If you're of the correct age it should serve as a transportation pass. Simple. Compliant. Captures useful data.

Sounds like they're dying just fine on their own, but if we're supposed to be investing in this at a national level, why let Intel management ruin it first?

> and the responses are accurate

If you knew this ahead of time then what value did it provide you? Put another way, once the counter party realizes that you've pushed this responsibility onto an LLM, aren't you worried that they could take advantage of this fact to produce intentionally misleading query results?

In an adversarial world what long term value could possibly exist here?

> Barrett also said Washington must do its job to stay ahead of the semiconductor race. The U.S. has invested more in the semiconductor industry in the past year than in the last 28 years combined, but he says it should do even more, especially in academic research.

Oh. Okay. So why don't we split up Intel and then make this exact investment in the spun off divisions?

I use the language. The existence of new language features has not forced me to adopt them. The standard library for browsers is a different story but it is always going to be.

Thankfully.. both maintain reasonable backwards compatability where security is not otherwise implicated.

> and fast changing area

Who cares? If backwards compatability is maintained then this fails to have any impact on my experience as a developer. It sounds like the VM maintainers are busy making their own lives hell. Not my problem.

> I'd rather we just move to native cross platform applications and stop using a document browser to build interactive applications.

Go back to garbage "cross platform" UI toolkits and having to help users manage software dependencies on their machine? No thanks.

> If these procedures sound easy to you, imagine that on the ground, the astronauts put on their suits and equipment with the assistance of technicians and it took them a little more than an hour. Now, imagine doing this inside the habitable volume of an Apollo spacecraft or a lunar module with one or two other humans alongside you trying to do the same thing.

lol.. yea.. but you're nearly weightless when you do so. Which makes it easier and harder at the same time. One of the upshots is you can put both legs of your pants on at the same time, and if you attach the suit to the wall, you can more or less just "stand up" into it.

Using any non Microsoft software.

> The problem is that windows was developed before security was important.

I disagree. Plenty of systems have added security as an afterthought and were just fine for the effort.

The problem is most people just want to play video games. They don't care about security. They don't actually want security if it frustrates their efforts to play games or reduces the computing power available for the game.

Look at houses. We could have amazing high security locks everywhere if we wanted. We don't. We don't perceive ourselves as needing them. It turns out "tamper evident" is a decent level of security for the real world and allows homes to be partially secure while being totally livable.

> If you want a security boundary, don't create a user in the Administrators group.

As a user aren't you essentially forced to this to have a usable desktop experience? I mean, sure, there is a boundary.. but it's drawn rather carelessly around the entire stack.

> These people are employed by companies specifically called out on sanctions

I don't believe you know this for a fact. Are you able to point me where a list of each developer, their association, and the problem with that association is enumerated?

> not excluded "due to first or last name"

https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/10/24/177

You could just ask them to use an email address hosted outside of Russia for their kernel development work if visible compliance was the only issue. To not offer them a remedy and to exclude people on the basis of their first or last name is a bizarre overreaction to me. It stands no chance of damaging the Russian government and can only harm the project and open source in general, I'm not sure why a non-profit would involve themselves in this in any way.

> once Petroleum runs out this century

Weird. I had that on my calendar for _last_ century. I wonder what happened?

Yea, the poor innocent US government, who only /looks/ bad because of things Russia says on social media.

The CIA spikes the Kool-Aid, Americans engrossed in false neo liberal culture drink it readily.

> to toppling hostile regimes and creating chaos

From a real world perspective you're being awfully cavalier with the lives of people who are just as much victims of their own government as you perceive yourself to be.

> measure disinfo operations in the US

Yet you take no stock of the same operations the US already runs in other parts of the world. What a petty short term victory you're aiming for.

> to stop giving these so-called unsuspecting and unwitting Americans the benefit of the doubt.

You're literally describing casually throwing away a cornerstone American principle over one of the smallest problems we've faced this year.

> at some point I become culpable because of my own stupidity.

Yet you don't reserve this for the owners of the companies in your first paragraph? The ones who are unusually wealthy from creating this "service?"

> just incredibly detailed

Other than forgetting that literal drilled wells exist.

> of, say, the UK.

of, say, any small island. These dynamics are unnatural modes of compensation for other inconveniences.

> as densely as the Dutch

or, say, people who live under the level of the sea itself.