Completely agree. There have been too many unnecessary leaps in Linux to incompatible revisions or entirely new standards that just created more problems than we had before. X11 just needs a cleanup crew and better defaults.
People who say these things about X11 and anything non-systemd sound like out of touch newcomers unaware of the BSDs or mainline Linux distributions that haven't gone along with Red Hat's directions. There is really no issue with X11 that isn't solved with a few options set to the X executable or using something other than startx to initialize, but I think OpenBSD made the right call just forking it.
Every single thing under the Sun going into systemd is going to cause issues (and probably already has with age verification laws and such) with compliance where a company is a singular target (Red Hat under IBM) to compel to make undesired changes contrary to our interests as users.
Red Hat is probably an even bigger problem than GNOME.
On the topic of WMs, some of these classics are really great. Openbox is a favorite of mine among the floating, but bspwm has been my overall favorite for 11 years.
Getting whiplash from which side of the issues people are angry about on the current administration's party on either social or economic/geopolitical impacts, and this other matter with Jensen and his sexual affairs vs. the economic/geopolitical issues of NVIDIA exports since this was with a Chinese spy.
Confused on whether people are actually upset about both or even understand the issue, or are just upset about one thing while using the other as ammunition.
It's one of those news stories that ends up being a good Rorschach test. There are a lot of different possible angles and takes, which means someone's opinion ends up saying something about themselves.
Yeah... What I meant with this was I'm hearing the anger and outrage in the responses to this story, and then I'm surprised to hear at the very end of someone's tirade that their objection seems to be solely about the sexual affair, and not everything else about this. It almost feels like satire.
I think a lot of people thought that every step of the way with the progress of AI or automation in general. Unless that C-suite is all shareholders with majority or near majority control of a company, I would think the passive shareholders (in a public or private company) would want the savings in cutting all of those high salaries to zero for a likely superior outcome with AI.
I wouldn't count on lawyers being deemed necessary by the law for as many actions as they have been so far.
> would want the savings in cutting all of those high salaries to zero for a likely superior outcome with AI.
Maybe. Or maybe the C-suite salary will be cut to $50K/yr. That would make them marginally more expensive than AI, but for that price the shareholders get an extra layer of insulation should things go awry (and they won't be held personally responsible for corporate malfeasance).
> I wouldn't count on lawyers being deemed necessary by the law for as many actions as they have been so far.
Maybe, but that's pretty far down the road and would require restructuring the whole jurisprudence system.
Wouldn't this be like asking the cable company a long time ago whether they thought the internet would pose a risk to their bottom line?
I don't know. I've been leaning toward AI being the more probable source for cures since existing companies in medicine either have no incentive to do it, or can't/won't do it at a pace the world needs. At any rate, I certainly will not take the word of a pharmaceutical CEO.
I realize this has been happening for a while since the current administration came into power, but for people from other G7 nations, it's kind of nice seeing this happen to the US for once.
Edit: The notes for the first article above indicate that estimates of the mass of the Higgs boson were greatly reduced after the SSC cancelation, allowing the LHC to accomplish its goals with less than half the total power (design maximum of 14 TeV for the LHC, versus 40 TeV for the SSC).
Notice also that the SSC was cut in 1993, under a Democratic congress with Bill Clinton in the executive.
agreeing, though to widen the perspective, it's been happening since long before the current administration, or that before it, were in power.
As a concrete example, my amazing professor left U Illinois for Austria, for an example, several years before the Trump/Biden/Trump again era.
it seems that the unending political battle drama gets tiresome for scientists. I believe some people realize that immersed in that context isn't how they want to spend their lives.
More than a few places won't even recognize VoIP numbers as legitimate primary numbers, and this will only make it worse. I'm not surprised an organization tied to Microsoft is going to ruin another thing I like.
VoIP numbers are not really a thing. I mean there are pools usually assigned from that other companies are aware of, but it's not enforced. You can buy a custom number and use it if you want. For example I had a residential landline number from my home town assigned and routed to a mobile in another country for better billing when my family wants to call.
I'm well aware. I've been using VoIP for a long time, but as I said, some services refuse to recognize VoIP numbers as they can query and check. It doesn't matter if the number was ported and originated from a mobile service or landline telephony provider.
Netflix is an example of a company that takes a hardline stance not allowing a VoIP number on an account, even while banks don't seem to care since it's the customer's choice.
> It doesn't matter if the number was ported and originated from a mobile service or landline telephony provider.
It still depends on public databases with hopefully-accurate data. I'm registered on Netflix on a number which can make and receive VoIP calls. It's just not a usual VoIP-specific provider. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50401117
I'd be curious to hear your justification for why it's so much more important for Netflix to ensure there's a "real" phone number behind the account compared to banks.
(Note: I don't agree with any equivalency or even correlation between phone numbers and legal persons)
Netflix could have their access to video content cut off if they don't comply with all the ridiculous power trips of content "rights" owners. Banks only have to comply with actual laws.
Banks are required by law to perform KYC. They would otherwise face much greater consequences than Netflix ever would.
Phone numbers are irrelevant for that though, so the only reason banks would think they need it is a false correlation between phone numbers and identities.
Netflix also seems to think phone numbers have something to do with identities. But you'd expect banks to be more serious about verification.
Banks in the developed parts of the world only really need to know the national identifier of their customer to report their assets for tax purposes, and be capable of verifying passports/government id tied to the identifier when they show up physically to claim what's theirs. Asking about anything else is only needed because the Usians bullied everyone into wasting humanities limited resources on it because they're administratively stuck several centuries behind when it comes to governance.
See, I don't believe that IDs are only used for verifying that someone in-person is the owner of an online account, because if that were the case, I wouldn't need an ID for banks that don't have physical locations. Rather it seems ID verification is used to correlate a legal person's accounts with each other, and make it more difficult to perform confidence scams. (Confidence scams typically include things like using a different identity to disconnect your actions, and their consequences, from your own legal identity.)
But the ID is of course tied to a nationally centralized auth/login system for the digital variant of the services, as it has been for decades. The notion of being capable of using someone else's ID in the first place is just absurd in this day and age.
I've never had to authenticate to any sort of federal or state system to create or operate a bank account. I just provide ID and SSN and that's it. I have to do it to access my taxes, but that's because the tax agency itself is already on the federal or state level.
Also, glad to hear that identity theft has stopped existing, it's about time. Hmm, why are identity fraud alerts still a thing? I'm sure they just haven't gotten around to removing it yet.
> For example I had a residential landline number from my home town assigned and routed to a mobile in another country for better billing when my family wants to call.
Why not just use some calling system that isn't legacy phone based? My preference is Signal because it's easy enough to use (including for non technical people), works well enough, and is private.
It's not fully reliable. For example you can have local residential lines that in practice go over VoIP and the provider allows you to use the same account to call out. They'll be classified as just normal landlines. It will vary wildly from place to place, but I think soon the type field in HLR will mostly lose its meaning.
(Just checked my company number, running on a hosted PBX, and it's marked as landline with no extra porting info that would contradict it)
The Home Location Register (HLR) is the telephone-provider-specific database that routes calls coming from other providers; while originally a 2G term (it's HSS in LTE and UDM in 5G), people still just call it a HLR lookup. The actual HLR lookup itself goes to a separate country-wide database that maps phone numbers to the cellular or SIP provider. So, when you place a call, your provider can use that database to then lookup the HLR database and reach out to it to further route your call to that person's specific location.
I've fantasized a long time about a clearer separation of technology from life, since it's been depicted in some ways I appreciated in fiction. But at this point, I'd just take a set of laws around what types of items should ever have any sort of networking.
I believe it's industrial protocols used to connect such devises to a SCADA system. It this case it's the SCADA system that has to be disconnected from any general purpose networks.
The freezer itself doesn't need to connect to a SCADA. You can network power and temperature monitors, but those monitors don't need the ability to shut off the freezer.
These freezers are manually stocked and cleaned. If they need to be powered down it's a simple matter of a hardware switch that you flip when the unit is empty.
reply