kanox

None, hopefully. Facebook should not give in to censorship campaigns.

Loneliness is not a real problem, the problem is those who insist on bothering others.

The FSF is absolutely about software and promoting free/libre alternatives to proprietary solutions is their core activity.

Russians are not the enemy, Russia is the enemy.

And this is based on Putin's foreign policy towards smaller neighbors that it historically controlled.

Russia still wants to dominate Eastern Europe and must be opposed. The US is an excellent partner in that, much better than Western EU.

Yes. Is there a good reason for agriculture to be less concentrated than industrial sectors, for example automotive?

> Germany tries buying gas from Russia and the USA sanctions the fuck out of companies that are even just marginally involved in it.

Good! Russia is an enemy.

Apple has been designing their own GPUs for a while.

PCI and USB bus standards include dynamic enumeration but ARM SOCs normally only use them as external interfaces.

IP blocks inside the SOC itself usually just expose their registers on an AXI bus with no enumeration support at all, this is most likely the case with the M1 gpu.

You clearly have no idea what an "authoritarian regime" means.

It's sad that we're so far down the slippery slope of censorship that people are cheering for authoritarian governments.

There is no equivalence between advertising companies tracking what you browse and a government's ability to throw you in prison.

This is a textbook example of an authoritarian government banning media outlets that allow criticism.

It's unbelievable that anyone can hate Facebook so much that they side with authoritarian regimes.

My laptop screen bends 180 degrees fully flat on the desk, I use this configuration with an external monitor but no external keyboard. Maybe that's how you would use this system most of the time, just plug an external monitor and ignore the built-in one.

This should be specifically targeted at large internet platforms and service providers (like ISPs). Some sort of cutoff can be found based on revenue, there are plenty of other regulations which only target companies above a certain size.

Large platforms (for example >10m users) should be forced by law to publish everything which is not otherwise illegal.

Completely disagree: the rights of individual authors should trump the rights of platforms, otherwise we will find ourselves in a situation where free-speech only applies to Facebook, Google and assorted media companies.

It is incorrect to conflate "hosting" with "speech", it is already obvious that being hosted on YouTube is not an endorsement by Alphabet corporation.

ctrl-f blockchain: nothing?

This technology is clearly crap and ripe for disruption. Sure: there are some good reasons for things to be the way that they are but decades of compatibility work won't save banks against a competent competitor.

> Right now, EVs are absolutely creating an regressive tax situation with regards to fuel. Those who can afford to buy newer, efficient cars can usually save money on tax over those who can't. For electric, it was worse - because they do tend to be more expensive to purchase up front, and they paid no fuel tax at all.

Encouraging the adoption of cleaner but more expensive technology is always going to be regressive, no way around this.

A lot of environmental regulation has strong regressive effects, it hits coal miners much harder than people sipping 10$ coffee on their macbook.

It's not a family, it's a workplace.

If the company pretends otherwise it's better not to work there.

> As another commenter here says: just use an old computer to run your old software.

Developing emulators is a much easier solution than preserving compatibility at the hardware or even the OS level. The fact that 20-year old windows games work fine is a product of Microsoft spending insane resources to maintain vendor lock-in.

Emulators themselves tend to be highly portable, for example I suspect that zsnes and dosbox will "just work" on arm64 macs or even RISC-V.

Also: allocating memory with GFP_ATOMIC doesn't sleep.

HTTPS is not about gatekeeping, you can use "let's encrypt" for free certificates for any domain.

HTTPS-only is about forcing all traffic to be encrypted by banning clear-text traffic. I've been using the "HTTPS everywhere" extension for years and it's great.

China is the world's largest economy, there's no way to avoid doing business with it.

HN loves to hate on TikTok but it's by far the best entertainment app out there. I go there because it makes me happy.

It's like imgur or reddit but with a recommendation engine that works and where you can completely avoid all the community infighting drama bullshit.

> Apparently, these satellites fly at 1100-1300 km.

SpaceX updated all of their applications to only request 550 km.

There is almost no elasticity in current market: DOD, NASA and traditional GTO comsat launches are few in number and not particularly sensitive to price. Payloads routinely cost several times the price of a launch so cheaper launches have little impact.

The satellite service business is much larger than the launch business and this is why SpaceX is attempting to enter.

What seems to be missing from these discussions is the gigantic bet that SpaceX is making on Starlink. They performed 15 launches for this constellation already that they paid for themselves. If the internet service business doesn't generate revenue the launcher side will see a majority of its launch manifest evaporate and book enormous loss.

From the outside it seems that a commercial failure of Starlink would bankrupt all of SpaceX.

This is a very interesting take. In Nokia's defense the incumbent leader of the PC market was Microsoft Windows and their phone efforts were not successful.

> Starship could drive down launch costs, but it can't reduce the cost of the satellites themselves. You'll hit a floor where it could reduce costs, but not remotely enough to justify it.

You're assuming that satellites are so expensive that the difference between Falcon 9 and Starship is not relevant but we don't know this. Satellite hardware is usually very expensive but SpaceX is building them internally as a series product so they might be able to drive the marginal cost/unit much lower.

It's safe to assume constellation bandwidth (and potential revenue) scales linearly with total payload mass, meaning it is proportional to ($satellite_cost_per_keg + $launch_cost_per_kg). Unless satellite cost is much higher than launch cost there are benefits from switching to a cheaper launcher.

Since Falcon 9 design is mostly frozen and still requires throwing away an upper stage for every launch it has a price floor of its own. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if launch is already more expensive than satellites.