orra

> If the DM particles are their own antiparticles, then their annihilation provides a heat source

How much if this is speculation? Also, do other particles behave like this?

I didn't realise particles could be their own antiparticles, but it transpires that e.g. photons are, because all photons are neutral, not charged somehow.

However, even though a proton is its own antiparticles, two photons do not annihilate, right?

Don't get me started. The agile manifesto says “individuals and interactions over processes”. So, of course a whole industry popped up of managers (and agile consultants) prescribing scrum.

In practice, it's not unlike waterfall, because requirements and timetables are prescribed from above. But hey, the team has a sprint kickoff meeting every two weeks, so we call it agile.

Nice to have the option to unwind across an FFI boundary. It's also good that (in a future release) erroneously unwinding across a C ABI boundary will abort, instead of being undefined behaviour.

> In general arrays and concurrency doesn't mix very well in Java, and is something I'd avoid mixing on principle.

Sound sensible. I think what you've said is any semi-malicious code can give you a primitive array, then modify it from under you in another thread. That's not completely surprising but the clincher is, you can't even take a defensive copy.

Yes. In fact, both String.valueOf(char[]) and constructor String(char[]) are already documented as copying the array contents.

Sure, but here we're not mutating the object during the String.startsWith() call. Hence I'd say it's a TOCTOU bug in String.valueOf().

Wait, really? It's very externally observable in the presence of multithreading. Surely there must be a way to say "no, really, please make a copy".

I can't agree with this analogy. This is not a defective user implementation of hashcode; it is a defective platform implementation of equals (and starts with, etc.).

> The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad]

It is nonsense to claim the Guardian is anti American because their style guide eschews capitalisation. They also refer to the “UK supreme court” and to “the king” without excess capitalisation.

> int main() {

To be fair to C++, this is undefined behaviour in C until C23. Prior to that the () is interpreted as (...), varargs, and not (void).

So, some mutually beneficial cross pollination of ideas.

It's a derivative work.

Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Aargh, I meant not keen on the heavier...

Thanks, if I'm honest I had skimmed over that setting before, not understanding its purpose. (It also looks like they're now introducing a unified inbox, which is what I wanted.)

I appreciate you doing this. I'm keen on the heavier outlines and squashed message list in 115, versus the mockups which I loved. But you feeding that back professionally and constructively, etc, may be productive; it's not healthy for us or the maintainers, for us to be an angry mass of users.

Thunderbird major releases match up with Firefox, in terms of dates and version numbering. However, Thunderbird releases major versions less often. Hence the discrepancy.

True. They may also wish to explore backup up only their settings + data, and excluding unpacked executables.

I don't think it's a world apart. But the borders are darker in now than in the mockup, and the message card view is way denser. But I'm sure they'll refine these things.

I obviously don't begrudge the fact Thunderbird currently works for you. But there are a few issues with the current UI:

* Dark mode didn't exist for a long time, and I'm glad it does, but messages are still displayed brightly.

* The list of emails always has a columns and a header; there's no simplified vertical view.

* There's a threading view, but IIRC it doesn't combine sent and received messages into the same thread view.

Just jumping in to say I'm also incredibly happy to see this change (and the other expected improvements).

Thunderbird currently looks dated, and I'm glad to see it brought into the 2020s.

Sometimes current users can be dismissive of UI changes, so it's good to see fellow users who are happy. Moreover, let's not forget the new users, who were previously put off by the dated UI.

(Maybe it's wishful thinking. But, precisely. My analogy would be: you can't run Visual C++ for commercial purposes without a valid licence, even though (ignoring linking against the runtime), the license of a compiler doesn't affect the licence of the output.

If weights are copyrightable, then you need permission to copy them into computer memory/run them, just like any application.

I haven't seen -E (aka -o errtrace) before, but it looks like a useful addition to the standard-ish -euxo pipefail.

Moreover, it's existence being required explains why my error handling, recently, wasn't working as expected.

> I'll be able to use the output of the model (that can't be prohibited)

If the model is copyrightable, they can prohibit you from running the model for a commercial purpose, even if they don't have copyright on the output.

Yes, precisely. If fine tuning is the preferred method of modification, then under the GPL the weights are source code.

Personally I think the truth is greyer than black and white.

Bingo.

And post Brexit they'll ignore all the CJEU case law about how blatantly companies have been building GDPR since the start.

Your desire for “actual contact documents” is complete overkill from my perspective. Verbal contracts are a thing in many jurisdictions.

Formalities can help prove things but they are often not required.

It definitely feels like things have coleasced around Termurin. I am under the impression Red Hat and Azul, etc, contribute, even though they have their own offerings.

I wonder what the handful of exceptions are. There can't be many, but maybe they are Enterprise applications.

In the UK this is almost a meme. Search for “Only the Lib Dems can win here”, for mathematical charting bemusement.

True. Maybe the fallacy is seeing exponential(ish) growth now, and pretending it was always exponential. Maybe population was linear(ish), for a very, very, long time.

I think it's precisely this. We see exponential population growth of population, so we naturally assume most humans are alive now. What this intuition fails to grasp is quite how long humans have been around: eventually that adds up.