qalmakka

While some parts of Europe got slightly warmer during the Middle Ages, only to then cool down significantly during the little ice age. Anyway all of those changes were slow, over the course of centuries, and not like now a quick, aggressive increase in length and intensity that's certainly due to the highly foreseeable results of freeing millions of years worth of stored carbon in the atmosphere in just a few decades

Also most models indicate that the AMOC collapsing would mostly make winters way more rigid, and only have a small impact on summers.

I don't know where you're from but where I live we've been having weather that's >30C for almost a month now. The other day we had 30C at 23:00. The sea is a pot of stock, the water is 30C and the glaciers on the Alps are literally flowing off the mountains. This is serious and I highly doubt that this will improve unless we build massive CCS (which we shouldn't). We had a great summer weather and we basically traded it for a tropical one

OT: It's sad that future generations will probably be robbed from the joy of being able to stroll around fields and nature during the summer, at least in Europe.

The climate is so hot already that you basically need to live the whole summer like a bat lives every day - shut yourself inside during the day, go out at night. I already have a list of once cherished summer hobbies that are now borderline between being unwise and foolish nowadays, and it was all in the span of 20 years

Yes, but

- the apps almost always allow you to remotely increase your stay - the apps almost always allow you to pay by the exact minute instead of by the quarter/half an hour

You need to find a working parking metre which may or may not work, accept cards or give back change. Also most if not all of parking apps allow you to pay by the exact minute and extended your stay dynamically from the go, while with a paper ticket you need to go back to the car and get another one before it expires

> A very large portion of that ABI is already implemented due to both systems being POSIX.

POSIX provides an API, not an ABI, and that API kind of ends at libc. Being compatible with Linux at an ABI level means being able to provide the same syscalls in the same way as Linux does. Not all Linux syscalls map cleanly to POSIX APIs, and in general xnu has lots of different concepts that make it somewhat cumbersome to adapt to what the Linux kernel does. The example of this is Microsoft with WSL1; they gave up not because Windows was too shoddy but rather because people want ALL of the kernel, which is a moving target anyway. it's a waste of time not to simply run it in the first place, virtualization is cheap and you get the real thing, with no quirks

> IMHO the real Linux advantage is that it was using the gnu user land, and thus gcc worked well with it and companies started to sell commercial support early.

IMHO what really differentiated Linux were

a. the bazaar development approach, which lowered barriers to contribution, felt more transparent and "safer" with regards to what was going on in kernel land

b. the GPL, which while annoying to certain companies due to its viral nature, it at least guaranteed that no competitor could just develop a major innovation, grab the kernel and all of your contributions and run with them, undercutting you in the process

and also a noteworthy mention was the fact the BSDs were basically sabotaged by AT&T via their nefarious set of lawsuits, which nipped in the bud any semblance of advantage they had

The BSDs would be much bigger today if it wasn't for AT&T going after them hard in the early '90s, exactly when both them and Linux were starting to take up speed. I think that things could have gone way different if the BSDs were bigger and more popular, in quite unpredictable ways (it's not like they haven't been popular anyway though - see Darwin, or the Playstation OS for instance)

> I'm not sure how it'd defeat the point of having their own kernel.

Because then you'd need to both maintain your kernel AND your own implementation of the Linux ABI, an ABI you don't have control over and that basically forces you to reimplement half on Linux in the first place.

People already get what they want by having a tiny Linux machine running at native speed. In 2026, virtualisation still isn't free, but it's pretty darn close.

> aving containers run hardware one owns, a bad or even shameful idea

what? it isn't, it's absolutely a right you surely have. The problem is that

a. Apple forces people to buy Macs to build, notarise and deploy iOS and macOS apps b. Apple refuses to implement jails which is something that every OS, including Windows, has nowadays c. Apple only allows you to have 2 VMs - full, fat, with GUI - on each Mac computer, running at once c. Jails/Containers would allow you to easily deploy multiple jobs, which would allow you to have N jobs in parallel, which would mean you'd need way less Mac Studios/Mini in your local CI

macOS sandboxing is deliberately limited just enough to prevent anyone from truly implement Darwin-on-Darwin containers. People have been discussing about this for a while, see https://github.com/apple/container/discussions/611

In general I understand the rationale behind Apple's decision. They sell hardware, and there's real demand for macOS on servers to run build jobs and other Mac-only tools. Giving you the ability to run multiple containers on a single Mac would end up turning a 10 Mac Mini order into a 2 Mac Minis order for most people. Rest assured, even if it would be technically possible they'd find a way to cap it somehow via the EULA or whatever

That's totally unrelated to what I wrote

This is all fine and dandy, but where are the native Darwin Jails Apple? Still scared that people will filling whole rooms of Mac Minis if you allow them to have multiple macOS containers and not only up to two fat VMs per machine?

Linux and the BSDs take APIs one from the other all of the time. The issue with having a Linux ABI is that you don't need just the few APIs you're missing, you need to implement the WHOLE Linux API and it has to be _perfect_, otherwise stuff will randomly break. I loved the original WSL, I had to use it for a time period back in the day when I was stuck on a Windows PC, but it can't be denied it was full of random bugs

FreeBSD has Linuxlator because there is a lot of binary only software that was never and never will be ported to BSD, so it's necessary for them in order to avoid bleeding users away. Conversely, macOS has basically all software ported natively to it, so when you _need_ a Linux environment 95% of the time it isn't because you need $XYZ that only run Linux, but because you need a proper Linux environment with systemd, cgroups etc. Implementing that stuff on top of XNU would probably be extremely expensive and it would arguably defeat the point of having their own kernel in the first place.

Does any older folk here remembers when NT was the Cool New Thing (TM) and it had by design support to multiple subsystems plopped over the NT API, and Win32 was just one of them alongside POSIX (Interix) and OS/2? There was even a _very short_ time span when Interix was actually usable (it was extremely short though)

It's clear to everyone involved that the EU deeply regrets how they did the Swiss agreements. Switzerland basically ended up in a parallel carbon copy of the EFTA for all intents and purposes. It was clearly stated during the Brexit charade that the bureaucratic fatigue of having so many cherry picked agreements with Switzerland made the likelihood of doing the same with the UK basically zero.

The EU has always been clear that the single market comes alongside the four freedoms. If Switzerland approves this referendum that's a very high chance they will have to exit the single market too, which will hurt Switzerland immensely.

This is very ironic to me, because right now we live in a world where the irrelevance of small nations is getting clearer and clearer by the day. Political norms and international law are being trampled daily by the larger powers, and Switzerland was recently at the very end of it when Trump basically bullied them by imposing on them tariffs that were vastly higher than the EU and then ghosting them because he couldn't give a shit about them

IIRC they had an agreement that Globalfoundries were to take the fabs and further develop them to shrink to better nodes. I think it was less than a "take this crap off of us" and more of a "we still need fabs, so here's some money and please continue running them for a while". GloFo then utterly failed at competing with TSMC, Samsung and Intel which was quite a problem for IBM. In general if you have a certain design you can't immediately port it to a different fab, you need to engineer it around the constraints of the fab node and process

Whenever you are publishing something, whether it be an app, a programming language, ... the examples or screenshots must come first. The reality is that unless you have made a very compelling case beforehand (like with a well crafted screenshot or example), most people will not read your list or description below. Put the examples at the start of the README, they're the selling point of your language not the list of features

For instance, this was the first ever version of the rust-lang.org website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111226082307/https://rust-lang...

I remember reading it 14 years ago and it was pretty effective at captivating users towards the language. Notice its terseness and the example at the bottom: a reader will first look at the example, then the bullet points above if they're interested, and then the rest of the docs

That, and also not realising that given the transparent background it's absolutely invisible with the dark theme. I didn't see it at all

Precisely. IBM paid them to take their fabs away (yes, they paid them, not the opposite, they were so obsolete that it was basically a waste disposal operation)

Basically like GNU Tar/CPIO and BSD Tar/CPIO. I've largely standardised towards using the bsd variant everywhere (especially since now even Windows ships it and it handles lots of other archive formats using the `tar` command) but it's always a pain to install it everywhere

As an Italian, I second that this is clearly a populist manoeuvre. Nobody in their sound mind would ever build a big datacentre in Northern Italy, the energy costs are way too expensive. There is no untapped hydro power available, fossil fuel is obviously always going to be more expensive than elsewhere, no nuclear power and you can't roll in a massive solar array with batteries due to how cramped the Po Valley already is. It would ironically make more sense to build it in Southern Italy, where once the political issues are sorted out, the access to wind and solar power are way easier and there are a lot of underdeveloped areas.

But yes, in general Italy (or Europe, maybe except France or Northern Europe with hydro power) isn't the best place to build data centres.

> blocking the future won't play out nicely for Italy or Europe in general.

I think you're somewhat misunderstanding how things in Italy have been working for the better part of the last 2 decades. I am 95% certain that this measure was passed *precisely* because it had zero concrete political downsides. Italian political culture thrives in draconian or purely populist measures that end up being absolutely irrelevant or unenforced (with some terrible miscalculation every once in a blue moon, see the closure of nuclear power plants). You ban something, you get the political clout of doing that, and then nobody actually checks whether the government ever attempted to enforce that law, or that nobody was going to do it in the first place.

Trust in me when I say, if building datacentres in Italy were economically sound nobody would have wanted to pass this measure

Fantastic job, albeit a 120 GB download is a herculean task though. I would have provided just the disk image as a separate image, most people on HN probably already know how to spin up their VMs and you can always download UTM, VirtualBox or whatever by youself without having to put it in the ZIP file

Look at https://github.com/dail8859/NotepadNext

The problem with B2C is that you need to have leverage of some kind (more demanding applications, planned obsolescence, ...) in order to get people to keep on buying your product. The average consumer may simply consider themselves satisfied with their old product they already own and only replace it when it breaks down. On the contrary, with the cloud you can keep people hooked on getting the latest product whether they need it or not, and get artificial demand from datacentres and such.

Currently, yes. But I don't find it hard to imagine that in a while we could get reasonably light open models with a level of reasoning similar to current opus, for instance. In such a scenario how many people would opt to pay for a way more expensive cloud subscription? Especially since lots of people are already not that interested in paying for frontier models nowadays where it makes sense. Unless keep on getting a constant, never ending stream of improvements we're basically bound to get to a point where unless you really need it you are ok with the basic, cheaper local alternative you don't have to pay for monthly.

I think they're in a win-win situation. Big AI companies would love to see local computing die in favour of the cloud because they are well aware the moment an open model that can run on non ludicrous consumer hardware appears, they're screwed. In this situation Nvidia, AMD and the like would be the only ones profiting from it - even though I'm not convinced they'd prefer going back to fighting for B2C while B2B Is so much simpler for them

CLI is massively superior to MCP in my experience. First, because I also understand what's going on and do it myself if necessary. Second because it's so much cheaper in terms of tokens it's not even funny

NAT is arguably a very broken solution.IPv4 isn't meant to be doing address translation, period. NAT creates all sorts of issues because in the end you're still pretending all communications are end to end, just with a proxy. We had to invent STUN and all sorts of hole punching techniques just to make things work decently, but they are lacking and have lots of issues we can't fix without changing IPv4. I do see why some people may like it, but it isn't a security measure and there are like a billion different ways to have better, more reliable security with IPv6. The "I don't want my devices to have public, discoverable IPs" is moot when you have literally billions of addresses assigned to you. with the /48 your ISP is supposed to assign you you may have 4 billion devices connected, each one with a set of 281 trillion unique addresses. You could randomly pick an IP per TCP/UDP connection and not exhaust them in _centuries_. The whole argument is kind of moot IMHO, we have ways to do privacy on top of IPv6 that don't require fucking up your network stack and having rendezvous servers setting that up.

We may also argue that NAT basically forces you to rely on cloud services - even doing a basic peer to peer VoIP call is a poor experience as soon as you have 2 layers of NAT. We had to move to centralised services because IPv4 made hosting your own content extremely hard, causing little interest in symmetrical DSL/fiber, leading to less interest into ensuring peer to peer connections between consumers are fast enough, which lead to the rise of cloud and so on. I truly believe that the Internet would be way different today if people could just access their computers from anywhere back in the '00s without having to know networking

AFAIK it's more like a reimplementation of NT APIs in userspace - aka basically Wine with extra steps, or Linux UM. There was a slide deck going around about Project Drawbridge, here: https://threedots.ovh/slides/Drawbridge.pdf