1,739 karma · joined August 21, 2009
You even note the problems, but then wave them away saying that "the government could fix them."
So have the government fix those problematic regulations first, and then the AI centres can re-apply for permission.
For powering a handful of things that consume less than 100W they are quite useful because they typically provide 2 or 3 DC outputs, and replace between 2 and 4 power bricks.
They also provide an hour or two of backup, quite useful in my country where the power sometimes goes out for a bit.
The downside is that I cant find decent ones in my country, and so I end up replacing mine every 2-3 years.
Compared to that, when I implemented RFC821/822 (i.e. SMTP) mail, the hardest part was the weird line-encodings, but other than that, the spec was ___so___ nicely readable and pragmatic.
But of course, it was s very long time ago and my memory may be inexact.
It was only when TDF contrived reasons to expel Collabora people that Collabora decided to leave.
(Full Disclosure: I am one of the Collabora people expelled)
Statistics 101: Correlation is not causation.
Home For Abandoned Code
:-)Taking ownership of unmaintained projects so that at least they have the bare minimum of patches being applied, CI/CD running, releases being created?
So the seychelles traffic is likely really disguised chinese traffic.
Internal documentation ..... hmmmm.... LOL.... Often not, word of mouth is the rule.
If there is internal documentation, it's generally pretty rough. Getting it to the point where you can hand it to external parties is a lot of work.
Because adding in repair stuff requires the supplier to provide documentation, frequently training, a parts manifest, guaranteed 10-20 year availability of spares, and probably about 50 other requirements I don't know about.
All of which add up to a rather large contract cost increase.
Possibly this boondoggle will result in the military putting in more reasonable "right to repair" terms in the contract, rather than insisting on the gold-plated thing I mention above, but more likely it will simply result in more cost overruns.
Of course, we cannot always help, sometimes the slowdown is due to increased feature or stability or conformance, but often we can improve things greatly.
Even better would be if your company could sponsor some fixes, of course :-)
This not useful. More data is required.
Rust in the linux kernel was always going to be a long game. You don't want to have that be a blocker when you really want is to make larger kernel changes.