chalst

Good link. I think it’s clear that he is the most corrupt president: while other presidents have been guilty of corruption, seeking money from foreign governments and firms via cryptocoins is a level of corruption no other president has met, and he’s quite open about it.

Some parts of more recent versions of Darwin aren’t fully open source.

You can run Windows on bhyve:

https://wiki.freebsd.org/bhyve/Windows

Homepage here:

  https://www.cheribsd.org/

which strangely doesn’t seem to link here:

  https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/cheribsd

The case is strong for not depending on anything the Trump admin could have control of.

Amateurs. Fortunately for them, the case is lost without their efforts.

Why the disclaimer? We know that monopolies make bad platform owners.

Students who do that risk submitting assignments that show they don’t understand the course so far.

He’s on BlueSky, where I see Yoav already follows.

> Thanks to whoever submitted.

That would be https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=CharlesW aka Charles Wiltgen.

Viruses that infect USB devices can compromise systems based on air gaps.

Cf. eg., https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/air_gaps.html and https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/ramsey_malwar...

The OP explicitly excludes training.

Difftastic is text-based.

You can be the one to create such a package…

Yes, since magit allows a call-out to diff and difftastic can be supplied as a binary, but magit allows you to use ediff, and Emacs allows use of tree-sitter, so I don’t really see the point.

Emacs has a git client, Magit, which can use ediff, the Elisp implementation of diff.

Since Emacs is widely used for parsing, and can parse using tree-sitter, Emacs doesn’t seem to benefit from difftastic. But perhaps I’m overlooking some capability of difftastic.

I guess what you described, though unpleasant sounding, fitted the Czech Republic’s history. Perhaps that’s why hilbert42 liked it.

The mugging scenario shows that there are risks associated with pairing removal, but the suggestion by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF [1] seems to deal with this particular issue.

Are there any other risks?

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39707586 (in reply to you)

-> But it also takes aim at “parts pairing,” or the practice of preventing you from replacing device parts without the approval of a company or its restrictive software. Apple, which routinely uses this practice to try and monopolize repair, lobbied extensively against the Oregon bill. As usual, under the (false) claim that eliminating parts pairing would put public safety and security at risk:

-> “We remain very concerned about the risk to consumers imposed by the broad parts-pairing restrictions in this bill,” John Perry, principal secure repair architect for Apple, said at a legislative hearing last month.”

There was a time when interpreting the “risk to consumers” as a risk of being prevented from gouging consumers would be cynical. Now I guess something like that occurred to the lawyers.

It also could be misused by Apple.

You’ve linked to a Wikimedia category of pictures. I assume this is not intended.

Is the sense of humour comparable to the Flashman series?

I would hesitate to say Julia has better support for Python interoperability, since I haven’t tried out Mojo’s support, but this interoperability is a goal of Mojo.

Many do, but some go beyond coherence and tell a story. E.g.,

https://www.entrances2hell.co.uk/page285.html

says

> The Cult of Reversible Death wrote of a moonlight-appointment with God (which the devil failed to attend due to prior commitments) claiming that it was to have taken place here at Puggnac. There is no evidence to prove their claim but the local steelworks still shows the event on their coat of arms. Puggnac has superbly delicate ductwork and a hydraulics system which was designed and built in Yorkshire.

Radom as hell, though, fitting the theme.

Julia is an example of a dynamic language that is fast. I would like to see Mojo and Julia compared for interoperability with Python.

Scheme is in recent standards (since R6RS) divided in two: a core language, suitable for reasoning about, and a full language, aimed at expressing economically the kind of solutions software engineers come up with. The full language is meant to be expressed in terms of the core language.

This seems analogous to the two-language approach you describe for Algol 68. Are you aware of recent developments in Scheme? Your description of it characterises it as a ball-and-chain for Algol 68.

I guess you are aware, but Godot can be compiled to JavaScript: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/export/expo...

Another time capsule, this time in the form of an endolink: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38938998

I have, in technical descriptions of compilers.

In a certain sense, decreases are reciprocals of increases. You can calculate the reciprocal of each “faster”, or you can work with the figures as given and what you want is the reciprocal of the final result. This follows from the elementary fact that division is the same as multiplication by the reciprocal and we are only treating multiplication and division.