That doesn't make a difference: with sha1 a malicious change in content will still result in the same content hash, so the signature will still be valid, and the commit hash will still be the same.
13,604 karma · joined July 11, 2016
Building a DRAM company from scratch is hard, expensive, and risky. You're burning a fortune to get started, and the result is a commodity product. But the AI bubble allows CXMT to have terrible yields, sell a legacy product, and still make a healthy profit! This is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to catch up.
And yes, right now that means selling DRAM for 10% below the crazy AI-inflated prices the incumbents charge. But sooner or later either demand will drop or supply will catch up. CXMT, like many other Chinese companies, is undoubtedly willing to operate at razor-thin margins to increase market share. Either the other manufacturers move down as well, or they'll be made irrelevant by CXMT stealing all their customers.
Having your resident compiler expert upstream the occasional patch to keep your legacy product from dying is one thing, but which big tech company cares about this specific compiler enough to spin up an entirely new dedicated team for it? And who's going to choose a mostly-abandoned compiler front-end as a core part of a new product?
Sure, it can be done, but for each individual user defecting to clang must be looking very attractive right now.
Sure, solar isn't free, but most of the problems it faces aren't exactly insurmountable. In fact, we are already seeing those solutions being deployed in the world - mostly for economic reasons.
If those reactors are so fantastic, surely you wouldn't hesitate at a chance to get some free money - no matter how little?
Naval reactors and civil reactors look roughly the same at first glance, but as the folks at Three Mile Island found out the hard way, there are some rather crucial differences.
From what I can tell this is just some retiring guys who want to make sure their life's work isn't lost to history, and who want to avoid screwing over their handful of remaining customers. Realistically, the best you can hope for is probably the occasional bugfix, and other open-source compilers scavenging it for a handful of useful clever ideas.
The whole point of the SR71 is to be stupidly fast, to the point of being impossible to catch. It could outfly missiles, and the mission was done and over by the point anyone could scramble a proper defense. Have it fly circles over a target and you're negating its one main unique selling point.
Want to loiter over a target? Use an RQ9. Want an impossible-to-stop snapshot camera? Use a satellite. So what's left for the SR71? I guess there are some missions where 1) you don't have air superiority, and 2) the target can hide in time from well-known satellite orbits, but 3) the target can't hide with 15-minute warning from a plane - but are those really common enough to justify the massive investment it'll take?
The bigger problem there is that we don't have the people any more.
The Rocketdyne F1 was the pinnacle of hand-crafted engineering, with each engine being slightly different and the people having to account for those differences during assembly. It has a whole bunch of complicated welds which require a lot of tweaking, adjusting, and literally days of welding work? Neil's got to go to the moon, so you better get to it!
Those highly-skilled highly-specialized engineers don't exist any more, and for a good reason: with CNC and robots we can achieve far superior results for a fraction of the cost. It just requires the designers to make it automation-friendly from the start. Those skilled people retired (and by now died) without a replacement, because the job had become obsolete.
So no, we literally cannot build a new Rocketdyne F1. We can design and build a better F1-like engine, though!
So did Netanyahu. His far-right policies require an eternal enemy to distract the people and blame for everything going wrong. The October 7 attack definitely didn't hurt his position in national politics.
Sure, but are we going to ignore about the US having to rely on its "helpless" allies to provide staging points and cannon fodder for its illegal imperialistic wars? How much of a superpower would it be without its overseas bases?
The problem is that the historical timeline doesn't match up. Zionism started way earlier, and tried to found a "Jewish homeland" in 1820 in New York, and in 1903 in Uganda, and there are literally dozens of other examples throughout history. Even if we look solely at modern-day Israel, it dates back all the way to the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The first settler violence started decades before the Holocaust ever begun.
> I don’t agree with the conflation of Zionism to ethnic cleansing.
How do you propose Zionists could've established an ethnically Jewish country on land already occupied by Palestinians without ethnic cleansing? Why didn't the Zionists migrate to Palestine by integrating in the already-present culture and society, rather than by displacing it?
Sure, if you ignore the part where they kept bombing Gaza, assassinated political leaders, did ground incursions, and blocked it by land, sea, and air.
If Israel wanted a peaceful two-state solution, why did they keep occupying Gaza by turning it into an open-air prison?
Postgres can only store 1) unzoned local time, or 2) UTC, with optional conversion on read/write.
In reality they'll spend 1 minute grabbing a close-enough template, 10 seconds filling it in, 3 minutes billing you, and 55 minutes double-dipping by doing work for other clients.
So what's the actual feature? Slightly higher performance? Slightly lower latency? Slightly longer battery life? And that for something most people are rarely - if ever - going to use?
So that brand-new fab has to pay for itself within the first 3-5 years, or it'll simply never pay for itself. But indeed, once it has paid off its initial construction costs it'll happily keep running for another 10+ years, churning out pure profit.
An additional problem here is that the costs have been rapidly increasing as the nodes have gotten more advanced. The tech for something like, say, the 40nm node is now mature enough that building new fabs isn't too expensive, so there's a decent market for building new ancient fabs for cheap mass production. But with EUV everything has gotten so complicated that there's no reasonable way to make it cheaper as it matures, and scale-wise you're well into the diminishing returns for everything which isn't logic. It is very much doubtful whether building brand-new 7nm-and-smaller fabs for mass production will ever make economic sense.
In other words: TSMC Arizona isn't SOTA - it is lagging 3 years (~1.5 nodes) behind.
Taiwan isn't stupid. It knows that keeping SOTA domestically is the only way it can rely on the US for protection. The second their fabs aren't absolutely crucial for cutting-edge chips anymore, the US will drop them like a brick - and China will happily devour the country.
Europe is allied with Taiwan and South Korea, and until recently also with the United States. Those countries can't build new chip factories without European lithography. Do you want everyone to innovate and grow by having each country focus on what they are good at, or do you want everyone to burn trillions reinventing the wheel over and over again solely for their own domestic market?
Persistent undo exists to recover from an accidental write-and-quit mid-session nuking some stuff you really didn't intend to delete. If you care about its contents beyond a handful of hours, you either need to adopt proper version management, or start making backups.
Reading the PR the change was needed because the old undofile format was fundamentally broken. They considered making an undofile-upgrade mechanism, but it would've caused more issues that it would've solved. In other words: stuck between a rock and a hard place.
A duty of care also means occasionally having to break things to make it better, or else you end up being stuck with spacebar heating[0] forever. As a user it does suck, but that's the price you have to pay for using actively-developed software.
Steve Jobs famously launched the smartphone industry as "We are launching three things: an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator. These are not three separate devices. It is one device, and we are calling it iPhone." Not having to carry a whole bunch of separate devices on a day-to-day basis was groundbreaking, and it was immediately clear that the synergy between the until-now separate features would open up a lot of new possibilities.
But since then the smartphone has mutated from a device of convenience into a grotesque attention-stealing privacy-invading Everything Device, which is used primarily as a proxy through which companies are doing massive harm to our society. For many people smartphones have become a necessary evil, and an increasingly-large group (many of whom Gen Z or Gen Alpha!) is deliberately refusing them out of self-preservation.
Sure, the market for a modern iPod refresh might not be gigantic, but I reckon it is definitely larger than the market for Apple Vision, or Meta's pervert glasses. The demand exists, the question is just whether it is large enough for Apple to care - especially when it means undermining their own golden goose app ecosystem.
In my part of the world cats are a rare sight on the streets, and virtually all of them wear a collar so they aren't feral. Meanwhile I can't recall ever having seen a rat, and according to the local statistics almost all rat extermination happens at farms.
Don't want rats in your city? Don't leave trash lying around in places easily-accessible to rats.