Not calling something bullshit when it’s bullshit is itself an example of bullshit.

See, I watch Adam Something videos from the point of view that he’s not really talking about America. He’s talking about European politicians looking at terrible ideas from America and trying to replicate them.

This is a pretty good example. America wouldn’t do this, exactly, but it’s a step towards our terrible bike infrastructure. The other poster had the right of it: in America, the sign wouldn’t be there at all, but the intersection would still be badly designed.

Yeah, let’s face it: the USSR collapsed for a reason, and its MIC was already failing by the time it did.

No way they’re replacing the bigger ones, like the Moskva. That one was built in a yard that’s now in Ukraine, and Russia hasn’t gotten that part back. Even if they did, Ukraine hadn’t really maintained it.

It was also launched in 1979, and they haven’t built anything that size since the USSR fell.

They’d have to rebuild the infrastructure needed to build the ship. These losses are irreplaceable.

On the tank side, some planned updates/replacements for the Abrams were very suddenly canned and went back to the drawing board. The DoD didn’t say why, but a good guess is that they saw how things were going for tanks vs drones in Ukraine, and decided that these new designs would be obsolete before they’re built.

Not sure about GP, but that’s basically what we did under “SAFe” (Scaled Agile Framework). PI planning means taking most of a sprint to plan everything for the next quarter or so. It’s like a whole week of ticket refinement meetings. Or perhaps 3 days, but when you’ve had 3 days of ticket refinement meetings, it might as well be the whole work week for as much a stuff as you’re going to get done otherwise.

It’s as horrible as you’re thinking, and after a lot of agitating, we stopped doing that shit.

Good chance you could at this point.

You know who is most fed up with YouTube’s policies? Content creators on YouTube. They’re locked in, they know it, and they hate it.

Gmail and other big providers tend to consider new domains to be spam until they’ve proven otherwise. Can’t prove otherwise until you’ve been up and running for a while. Catch-22. The way out of that is to host with an existing provider for a few years.

Does it cut down on spam? Perhaps. Does it favor existing providers like Gmail? Yes, definitely.

Honestly, hosting email has long been difficult to setup, and all the more so if you don’t want your box to be a spam host within three seconds of plugging it in.

I wonder about Microsoft’s liability on this one. People store all sorts of things in there, some personal, and some corporate things that are at least non-public, if not outright sensitive. Yeah, people should be using an encrypted drive for especially sensitive info (not that this would stop Microsoft when they own the OS), but they don’t, and it’s not for Microsoft to force the issue.

Did their legal department actually sign off on this? Or did someone in MS legal just shit a brick when they saw the headlines?

Coincidentally, they make it harder to use a local account with every update.

Hydrogen is probably going to get pushed out of every niche where it might be viable. Batteries tend to get better by 5-8% per year, and there’s every reason to believe that will continue to be the case. Run that forward for another decade or so, and even things like heavy construction equipment and transpacific airplanes are viable on battery power.

It’s a waste of time and money at this point.

Hardly a stretch. The comparison isn’t to the power density of gas, but overall curb weight. EVs are roughly 10% heavier than an ICE equivalent. Batteries are the main reason for that (electric motors and the electronics to support them aren’t that much). Batteries have also been improving Wh/kg by 5-8% per year. It only takes a few years of improvements to get there.

In fact, since the 10% number has been the case since around 2020 or so, the battery tech might already be there and we just need to get them into new models.

There’s almost always at least a little ASM sprinkled into any kernel, so that’s not a big deal.

OTOH, there is the factor of “you know how Chrome takes up 2GB per tab? What if that was a whole OS?”

Alrighty then.

unzips

It could be true. Catalytic converters do a pretty good job of filtering out most pollutants. They also increase CO2 emissions in a variety of direct and indirect ways. Everything else is lower, though.

The way to make EV tires pollute less is to not chase 600+ mile range. Keep them around 300-400 miles, and use further battery improvements to reduce weight. There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever. With better charging infrastructure, 400 miles is more than enough.

The way to fix everything else wrong with them is to not make cars the default mode of transportation.

The Rust compiler tends to turn my impostor syndrome to 11. I assume she has some kind of humiliation kink and I do not consent.

It’s how journalists apply pressure to companies to respond. “We have statements x, y, and z from the public about you. Do you care to respond? We need to go to press with it in two hours.” Companies can ignore it if they want, but the statements will go uncontested.

Not every problem is amenable to GPUs. If it has a lot of branching, or needs to fetch back and forth from memory a lot, GPUs don’t help.

Now, does this thing have exactly the same limitations? I’m guessing yes, but it’s all too vague to know for sure. It’s sounds like they’re doing what superscalar CPUs have done for a while. On x86, that starts with the original Pentium from 1993, and Crays going back to the '60s. What are they doing to supercharge this idea?

Does this avoid some of security problems that have popped up with superscalar archs? For example, some kernel code running at ring 0 is running alongside userspace code, and it all gets the same ring 0 level as a result.

Here’s one that’s not as consequential as other posts here. It’s not going to change the world, but would make things slightly better.

Split lock washers are worse than useless. They’re supposed to be a spring against the bolt to help resist it turning back out over time. They don’t. If anything, they make it worse.

Here’s a NASA publication on fastener design (because of course there’s a NASA publication on fastener design): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900009424

The lockwasher serves as a spring while the bolt is being tightened. However, the washer is normally flat by the time the bolt is fully torqued. At this time it is equivalent to a solid flat washer, and its locking ability is nonexistent. In summary, a Iockwasher of this type is useless for locking.

This was published in 1990, but we’re still using this shit. Stop. There are many other kinds of fastener locking that work, like nylon locking nuts or threadlock, and we don’t need these.