The mercator projection has neither a top nor a bottom, it extends infinitely upwards and downwards. Hence all visualizations of it cut it off at some arbitrary point. Making antarctica humorously large does nothing besides make a point.

People who actually care about their money often like to compare competing products and decide which one provides them the best value.

The amount of RAM doesn’t tell you anything about "the best value". Bad software with a large amount of RAM provides less value than highly-optimized one with a lower amount of RAM, for example. This was the whole advantage of the iPhone at the beginning: not a lot of RAM (meaning less energy needed) but a highly-optimized OS that works well even with that constrained environment.

It tells you a lot about the best value. It certainly doesn't tell you everything, and you might well pick a more expensive phone with less ram for other reasons, but all else being equal a phone with more ram will be better.

There shouldn't be "mass layoffs" for that reason. If they are both reasonably large companies, the size of the HR department depends on the number of employees. When you merge the companies, the number of employees initially stays the same, hence there is no HR to be fired. You might consolidate the HR departments, and this might lead to some roles becoming redundant, but not on a mass scale. Similarly for accounting, marketing, etc.

The fact is that there are no synergies for many companies, even companies operating in the same industry. The reason for promoting a merger between such companies is exactly that they will see reduced competition and hence greater profitability. The ideal merger is actually between companies making different products, where the one company can benefit from more vertical integration.

I'm telling you from my experience having done 25 M&A transactions worth many billion dollars.

These cost synergies exist and are a major driver behind deals, though not the only driver.

Was it released with it? Iirc they tried moving to such a license from bsd, which contains no patent grants whatsoever, and hence they thought it was a strict upgrade. The community did not agree so they moved back.

My memory is a bit fuzzy but I think you're correct.

It requires the claim to be made with "willful disregard for the truth". Notifying someone, especially with a cease-and-desist on fancy letterhead, makes it legally clear that they know better, and thereafter would be definitely libelling you (assuming the claims are in fact untrue and harmful). But you can still sue them for the claim prior to the notice, you just have to prove they should have known better prior to making the claim.

A lot of these style of reframings seem to completely lack a theory behind them, as if reframing things will magically solve a problem. In this case, further vilifying or antagonizing drivers will do absolutely nothing to increase road safety. How would it? These memes won't reach the majority of drivers. Those it does, rather than feeling mollified, will feel accused, and hence will be more likely to drive recklessly around cyclists.

A reframing that would have the power to lower collisions between cars and bikes would be to blame the road design, or even the car design. These are things that can be easily changed for a large number of people if enough political will exists.

Road and car design are an important part of the problem, but so is car culture, which is all in the head.

Having assets under management doesn't mean you have that money. You don't own it, you are just taking care of it for somebody. When describing a company as an $X billion company, conventionally this is referring to the market cap. You could use it to describe other things they possess if you wanted to, but assets they manage will never be something they possess.

Ok, so we're engaging in sophistry. Got it.

Language is a communication tool. If you misuse language you will be badly understood. The solution is to use the correct word for what you mean, not to accuse others of sophistry.

How about 'pedantry'. I'd go with 'condescending', but that was clearly your intent.

People misunderstood your original reply. Correcting you is not pedantry.

> One of our developers was compromised by a recent supply-chain compromise on Tanstack

...which in turn was caused by bad design of github's CI pipeline. Funny how it all comes back around like that.

Yeah..full circle

Interestingly fails as well, in two ways. First:

> The string may begin with an arbitrary amount of whitespace (as determined by isspace(3))

Second is that it only applies to signed long long, not unsigned.

Some people would set up tooling to look for compromises the moment they get published. What's neat about this is that as an attacker you have no way to determine beforehand whether you'll get caught by this. So you would run your attack, it would lead to a compromised package being published, then the world would get a chance to look at it and see if they can detect the issue with it. This would of course lead to attackers being a lot sneakier. But I think due to the opaque nature of what checks people are running against packages and what they might notice, a much smaller number of attacks would make it through. Of course the ones that did by definition would be the ones that were impossible to detect and would thus stick around a lot longer.