cbsmith

Appears being the operative word.

It sort of doesn't matter. Bottom line is it isn't an effective platform for them.

If you think it is "essentially zero cost", I'm going to respectfully suggest you do not understand what you read. If you think they reached 13 million people on X last year, you do not understand social media.

They have made 399 posts to YouTube over the life of their YouTube channel, so that's an average of 20 posts a year.

I'm sorry, but you're projecting a subtext.

It's really weird that the EFF would post something on their own site to speak to their supporters, and that it would employ "identity-group-affirming language".

Just because they issue one post that is targeting their supporters doesn't mean that they don't care or are ignorant about the broader audience. That's ridiculous.

The "de minimis" at the end is a pretty sick burn.

You might want to read their post before commenting. They seem very much aware of the need to reach people who aren't supporters and have always actively engaged with the platforms they are critical of. It's just that X isn't really an effective use of their time anymore.

AFAIK, the Go runtime is pretty NUMA-oblivious. The mcache helps a bit with locality of small allocations, but otherwise, you aren't going to get the same benefits (though I absolutely here you about avoiding execve overhead).

Maybe? I wouldn't count on it. The US may be a net petro exporter, but it's about 1% of GDP. The other 99% are not going to do well with inflated energy prices. So exports might net go down.

...and of course the US has a lot of other industries that are hurt by this: https://www.npr.org/2026/03/26/g-s1-115240/iran-war-strait-h...

Short term, you might be right.

However... higher oil prices also increase energy prices across the board, and China's energy sector is dominant in renewables. I think they're more than happy to have the competing energy sources become even more expensive.

That doesn't exactly limit the impact of cutting off the supply. It's a global trade market. If China buys on the global market from other places instead of Iran because that oil isn't available, that still creates a shortage for everyone and that still pushes up the price of oil for everyone.

Yeah, once the fab is gone it's too late.

Surprised Optane wasn't kept on life support by hyperscalers and kicked in to overdrive as the demand for AI memory spiked.

From the article:

"These chemicals are not just additives; they may be migrating from the headphones into our body," said Karolina Brabcová, chemical expert at Arnika. "Daily use—especially during exercise when heat and sweat are present—accelerates this migration directly to the skin. Although there is no immediate health risk, long-term exposures, especially vulnerable groups like teenagers, are of great concern. There is no 'safe' level for endocrine disruptors that mimic our natural hormones."

Doesn't matter. Under the US Court of Appeals ruling, the agreement to the terms of GPLv3 would apply, at which point all associated software would be subject to GPLv3 terms. Even if one remade everything from scratch with an AI, one would remain subject to the terms of the license.

Might be fun to take some BSD or MIT licenses and send out e-mails updating them to GPLv3...

> LLMs won't add information to context, so if the output is larger than the input then it's slop

That doesn't align with my observations. A lot of times they are able to add information to context. Sure it's information I could have added myself, but they save me the time. They also do a great job of taking relatively terse context and expanding upon it so that it is more accessible to someone who lacks context. Brevity is often preferable, but that doesn't mean larger input is necessarily slop.

Yup. The comment about the LLM generated PRs is telling. The complain is the LLM generated PRs don't describe design intent. You know how to avoid that? Tell the LLM to provide intent, and if need be, give it the intent. A PR which doesn't capture intent should be categorically rejected and the parties responsible should expect to never get a PR through without it.

One could almost imagine the article was intentional self-parody. Almost.

I think it mostly demonstrates that people don't read laws before criticizing them.

Yes. I'd recommend reading the bill if you have concerns.

That's a bit of a stretch. They split apart when he was 5 years old, and his dad was a Pakistani diplomat.

He was a Pakastani-American, so I'm not sure that really explains it, nor do I recall that being the case.

Except that there are tremendous advantages to constant-time execution, not the least of which is protection from timing security attacks/information leakage (which admittedly were less of a concern back then). Sure you can get the one instruction executed for the <6 case faster, but the transistor budget for that isn't worth it, particularly if you pipeline the execution into stages. It makes optimization far more complex...

Because then you have the inherent issues that come from open, federated systems. ;-)

They make more of their money from transaction fees and selling transaction data. The interest is a nice bonus.

Yeah, I kind of understand the answers... and yet, it seems crazy. Just insane.

Not to take credit away from Andrew for his ideas and writing, because at least he came up with the idea and wrote about it, but I don't understand how that idea of Jepsen style testing of package managers is a novel idea. Like... what testing would you want to do if you were building a package manager?

...and unfortunately it is letting them go at a substantially higher rate than the public workforce.

I have yet to hear a criticism of academia where it sounds like we're better disproportionately losing people with PhDs than without them, particularly since most of those people got their PhDs quite a while ago.

PhDs seem to be quite employable by private industry, where competency is still valued.