Or, the bill fails.
But all of its objectives get packaged attached to other bills that are actually required to be passed.
So you get some random bill about the shape of car exhausts which suddenly requires OS providers to verify users ages
towerful
joined 2 years ago
Well, no. But then it gets rejected, and further PRs that also fail the check will likely get you banned from contributing.
The human is responsible.
If the code or PR fails, the human has to own that.
If the human fails to own that, the human gets banned
As a non-american, the speed with which trump has dismantled international relations and the lethargic (even non-existant) reaction of the "checks and balances" that should prevent such things says to me:
If America has done it once, America can do it again.
It can spend 30-50 years building strong relationships, or it can devastated them in 1-2 years.
Seems better to work without America, and let America do it's own thing.
If America wants to join in, fine. But it's gonna be on the world's terms, not Americas.
Yeh, AI as an assistant/tool. Not as a replacement
2026 Debian Vs 2001 windows?
Or 2001 Debian Vs 2001 windows?
Cause 2001 Debian 2.2 was like 4MB ram, maybe 16 if you are really going for it!
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/omnibook/boot-floppies/current/doc/ch-hardware-req.en.html
So yeh, let's continue comparing apples and oranges.
FreeRTOS is bloatware cause we were able to orbit a sphere that could reflect radio waves with a bunch of tubes and a handful of germanium.
What the fuck is this "windows xp Vs modern Debian" shit?
It's the "wall and make them pay for it" it's the "tarrifs and make them pay for it" now its "war and make them pay for it".
That's not a big financial incentive.
Microsoft will remove stuff when it actually gets in the way.
If it's easier to leave in and not have to touch dozens of other programs/services then they will.
They might mark it as depreciating, and start planning a suitable replacement. They might just mark it as depreciating and kick the can down the road.
When enough services that relied on that depreciating thing have been touched due to other updates, then they might look at actioning the depreciation.
But if it doesn't actively break the thing they are currently working on, the cost overhead or ripping it out is insane.
There might be other dev teams working on features that now rely/leverage the thing marked as depreciating. But the thing getting marked as depreciating happened towards the end of the other teams new feature development cycle. At which point actually depreciating the thing might invalidate that other teams entire project.
And maybe the rip it out, and it turns out one of their large clients (or a large amount of the user base) was relying on it.
Addressing technical debt is always hard to justify, but it always makes a better project.
If management doesn't care about a better project, they will prioritise features and things that make money
But maybe they have the lowest crash rate?
So like, crashes cost money right? Someone is responsible. Someone has to pay.
But if everyone dies in an inferno, then nobody is responsible. Who can pay? They're all dead! What medical bills? What repairs? It's all a write off.
Sounds like a high mortality rate with low accident rate is an absolute profitable win!
Free market baby!
Mumble is fantastic.
I designed and implemented a very complex voice system for an old guild. Like 100 people, 8 groups of 15, group leader's private chat, priority speech all that. It worked so well, and never failed.
This was many many years ago, to be fair.
I wish it's positional audio was more supported.
Well, non-flammable vents for one thing
Being "anti-drugs" can be a positive position of support for drug users and tackling the root of the problem.
Not just "do drugs = bad guy". But actually understanding the problem, and addressing it
view more: next ›
Yup. It's not giving an example so "e.g." doesn't make sense