sgift

For someone not from the US: From the second point I understand that the SAT is not the only thing used to decide who gets in? So, it's not "we have 100 slots this year, the 100 best get in"? What else is used?

The preprocessing that you need is (in Lucene nomenclature, but it's the same principle for search in general) an Analyzer (the component, which knows to prepare the plain text that gets inside for storing it in an index and the corresponding component for a search query) made for code search. That's not different from analyzers for other languages (Stemming sucks for almost everything but English). Thinking about it .. the frontend of most compilers for a language could maybe make a pretty good Analyzer. It already knows language specific components and can split them into parts it needs for further processing, which is basically what an analyzer does.

You make it sound as if being logged in to github is somehow a big hurdle. It's free and it's easy, so why should one care if it's only available to logged in users?

Personally, I'd rather vote 120fps and 4k as gimmick. If I had to choose between Raytracing or 120fps? Always Raytracing.

"Full RT" means the game uses 100% raytracing for rendering (in some mode), which currently needs still far too much power to be a mainstream thing and is only added in a few games to show the prowess of the engine (IIRC a review of the Cyberpunk 2077 Full RT mode only a 4090 is really able to provide the power needed). The important entry is "yes", which shows far more entries and means there's Raytracing enhancements in addition to rasterization.

So, no, it's quite the opposite of what you stated: RT gets more important all the time, is not a gimmick and there's zero reason to assume it will be dropped in the future.

It's his name. Which other name should they have used?

Embarrassing. I really thought we had incorporated Unterschleißheim into Munich ages ago. And I live here .. oh well. Thanks for the correction!

They always stated that it won't be cheaper. That was not the intention.

The main point was that Munich saw an opportunity to leave a monopoly for an option with competition. When the LiMux decision was made Munich had to change their whole IT landscape anyway (They ran on NT4 and even extended support was running out / getting extremely costly), so they thought: If we have to change anyway, why not change for something where we have more options?

The link is just about a move from one part of Munich to another (MS German HQ has always been in Munich). From what I remember it was more that we had a coalition with the CSU for four years and unsurprisingly, the moment conservatives were part of the cities government all went back to "help the companies".

(MS had tried to pressure against the move from the start, but wasn't really successful in the first years)

> Those data centers are easily converted to green energy.

Energy which could be used for other things. I don't say it's bad to use power for AI, but just saying "well, it's green energy anyway" is short-sighted imho. At least as long as there are still any things not yet powered by green energy.

Yes, but gangs mostly hit normal people and normal people don't pay big bribes. The entertainment industry does.

> The complaint alleges that Bechtolsheim "knew or was reckless in not knowing" that the information he was given was non-public

There is a (small) possibility that he really didn't know (the second part of the complaint), but decided it's not worth a fight with the SEC cause it's such a small amount to him (and he has no interest in serving as an officer of a public company in the next few years anyway).

Though, the version others have said is still more probable: Reach people wanna get more rich, no matter the method.

> To go into opinion, I'm heavily leaning towards the "ideology" explanation

Yes, it's that. The usual slogan for that can be roughly translated "The government is not the better entrepreneur" ("Die Politik ist nicht der bessere Unternehmer"). It's usually trotted out by conservatives and libertarians in Germany if someone dares to suggest that the government could own some company or even only parts of it.

> You cannot dismiss something as "propaganda" or with a reason "Putin said so".

If provided without evidence? Yes, you can. What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

> Everybody knows you should not corner a wild beast.

Nobody cornered Russia, Russia decided that it wants its old colonies back. Most of them were wise enough to long before ask NATO to protect them this time, Ukraine unfortunately had trusted Russia when it said it will honor Ukraines independence and now pays a heavy price for it.

And the US (and other countries) authorities which allowed Mercedes Self-Driving Level 3 did too? Sounds more like reddit bullshit to me.

IMHO there's reason to believe that was what was discussed here plays a role in that decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39592689 - namely NVidia trying to forbid such APIs.

I didn't link a video, I linked an article.

Why Tesla? Why not Mercedes, who have shown real self-driving (e.g. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/future-driving-hands-off-eye...) in specific environments, unlike FSD, which cannot self-drive? Or Waymo with their self-driving taxis?

Being the first at claiming you are able to (or will be able to) do something doesn't make you a relevant contender in a space.

"known-bad" ... defined by you? Cause if the best & brightest did it (in this case SETI@Home) it seems they disagree with that categorization.

None of that is jailing for a political belief. You mix beliefs and actions.

> You can be jailed for your political beliefs throughout most of Europe.

Uh ... since when?

Agreed. Sure, you can expand it with PACELC, but the important part is that you have something which starts the conversation/thinking about the fact that distributed systems have specific requirements and challenges. And CAP is sufficient for that.

"Want to tell how to live" - what a bullshit way to read the GP comment. People starved, others tried to help them not to starve. They didn't "tell them how to live". If Mongols want to live like before and starve, sure, that's their privilege, but then I'd say everyone else has done their part. It's not the job of the world to help someone who wants to suffer.

> And instead of helping to build a place for Palestinians to live, they kept them under direct military occupation until 2005, then under blockade plus air raids (in retaliation for Palestinian attacks, but usually ending up with a 10:1 ratio of dead Palestinians for each killed Israeli citizen).

Gaza got billions of aid since 2005. Water pipes were built, material was delivered. What happened with it? They built one of the biggest underground tunnel systems in the world (as we can see right now), they dug out the pipes to use them for rockets, same with the material. And all the time they attacked Israel and then said "we cannot live in peace, Israel blockades us", leaving the 'after we attacked them again and again' part out.

Palestinians had all the help in the world to live a peaceful life in the Gaza strip with more freedoms over time if they can show that that freedoms don't lead to more dead Israelis. Each time they chose violence instead.

Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see that if you base your operations there the enemy is allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your civilian population that's another reason countries don't do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.

It's quite simple: If you want something which is a part of me - especially one that's uniquely identifying - you better are a) part of the state of my country and b) have a pretty good reason for it.

Neither of these two is fulfilled here, so yeah - it's bad.

I find it good that no one until now provided this bullshit lie as context. The "we need it to be closed for it to be safe" claptrap is the same reasoning people used for feudalism: You see, only certain people are great enough to use AGI responsibly/can be trusted to govern, so we cannot just give the power freely to the unwashed masses, which would use it irresponsibly. You can certainly trust us to use it to help humanity - pinky swear.

Yes, but you are arguing against something I never stated. My point stands: The communist countries had aspects which worked better. And I haven't seen anyone (besides tankies) seriously stating "let's go back to the UDSSR and it's satellite states", but many people noting the same thing: Some things worked better. Let's learn from that. And those then get shouted down with "all communist countries were shit! you never lived in one, or you wouldn't say things like this!"

Romania is also a highly biased example based on Ceaușescus personal decisions on how a country should be run. Which shows my original point: Even within the communist countries you can find difference and things which worked better or worse. Just putting them in some big "it's communism, all was shit" bin is an oversimplification which doesn't help at all.

Same reason why it took companies very long until they were ready to accept OSS. "But who can we sue if something doesn't work?" - at the end of the day it's always about someone being responsible. And if people can make sure that that someone is not them they will often take that option.