Virtually yes. That's why they have a ventilation system that takes air from the outside, runs it through a heat exchanger with the expelled inside air.

The houses are air-pressure-tested according to DS/EN 13829 and DS/EN ISO 9972:2015
The air/pressure loss must not exceed 1,5 l/s pr. m heated area at 50 Pa.

That's intentional abuse of the companies' time and money.

Oracle/sparc: Oracle probably found out that the average software developer doesn't know how to code for anything else than x86. That combined with the resulting small set of available software probably lead to dropping any kind of SPARC cloud.

Qualcomm/ARM: Dunno. I'm using a few Cavium ARM ThunderX2 instances at Scaleway and they are running fine, but it seems they are being phased out for cheap (atom?) x86 servers.

Genuine spam calls are rare in some places, eg Denmark, because unsolicited commercial calls and SMSs are illegal (with the exception of newspapers and insurance companies). The fines can be considerable, examples of up to $1500 per call are seen.

Allegedly, there also spam calls from abroad for viagra/hotels/nutritional supplements/... but I have never received such a call .

The scam "microsoft support" does occur in the EU, but it is likely to vary from country to country:
- the scammers typically only speak English, so are the citizens of country X likely to understand English?
- are mobile phone numbers recognizable and are they more expensive to call?
- do the local telcos care about it? Do they keelhaul voip-to-local providers that allow such business?

No it doesn't. Facebook is not a free speech platform. They can block adverts for any reason.

All it requires is that they look at it: facebook page "ABC" makes an advert called DEF.COM, but points to GHI.COM that generally talks about hamsters and ferrets, to a page that talks about some celebrity that does something, where the whole page layout is copied from tabloid JKL.COM and all (_all_) links point to makemoneyfast.com.

Anyone with half a brain will deduce that:
  - the facebook account was probably hacked, or is an old sockpuppet account
  - the website was compromised, or expired and then taken over
  - that the page violates copyrights of the tabloid.

But noooooo, it doesn't violate their guidelines. And it is surely just a coincidence that facebook makes money on showing the adverts.

My conclusion is that facebook doesn't want block those adverts.

I have reported many of them where they pointed to a fake article about a celebrity revealed how to make money fast before they could turn off the camera on a daily show, with images and layout copied from one of the tabloids.

The facebook reviewers either didn't return or returned with "We have looker at the ad and it doesn't violate our guidelines ...".
Every. Single. Time.

To be fair, the fake articles used cloaking so if the "fbcliclid" CGI parameters etc. weren't there they showed something else. But that is pretty simple to check. It could be argued that such gross incompetence/apathy virtually amounts to collusion.

I suggest they adopt the logo of a Cane Toad. It seems to fit.

Type system: "They’re well known for humping dead animals, even trying for hours to hump a female that has been run over by a car, but they don’t limit themselves to just dead frogs, they’ll even hump dead salamanders, snakes, lizards, mice, anything."

The word "global" in the article is probably taken from ITE's website where "global" means US+Canada+Australia+New Zealand.

I assume that the timings already vary due to local considerations, such as average speed, width of roads, neighbourhood, etc.

I think the headline is slightly exaggerated.

If that was the case then for-pay software wouldn't exist, yet it does.

I think your premise is that corporations would have to pay license for each component individually, which would indeed be unlikely.

A more likely possibility is that programs that embed components would handle the payment for those so the user of the program (the corporation) only has to deal with payment for the program.

AGPL only requires the changes to be public. It does not require them to be a nice changeset, pull-request, be commented or in any particularly useful form.

Also, AGPL only concerns itself with the source code. Contributions back to the project could also be beer, bug reports, money, resources, testing, ...

So AGPL isn't a bad license but it has its limits.

If by "give back" you mean the source code changes and additions then AGPL mostly fits.

If by "give back" you mean money or resources then I don't think there are any suitable licenses. I have looked and looked for such a license for one of my projects. I ended up writing my own license which I really don't like. I also noticed that many developers are looking for such a license but all the answers they get are "then it isn't free! You are evil!"

The "OK" sign means , "evil eye", "asshole" or "worth nothing" in some cultures.

See more at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Because they can contain technologies/algorithms that are useful and not available in open-source compilers. Eg. language bindings to OS-specific APIs, nifty hardware-specific syntax, optimizations, language extensions, better diagnostics, ...

Closed-source compilers were the norm for PCs for many years (Borland, Zortec, Metaware, IBM, Microsoft, Watcom, Intel, ...).

Yes, Huawei could make a backdoored compiler, but given that it is meant for their proprietary HarmonyOS where it would be easier to hide backdoors, I doubt' that there are any backdoors in the compiler.

One other: https://www.ainonline.com/avia...

which has this interesting tidbit: [...] international panel of safety technicians scrutinizing how the FAA allowed the airframer to oversee parts of its own certification.

An article that has some of the details is: https://simpleflying.com/easa-...

Some of the details are quite ... interesting ...:

[EASA requires] Training for crew: The agency demands all Boeing 737 MAX flight crews are adequately trained

As well as this, EASA wants Boeing to demonstrate the stability of the MAX during unusual and extreme maneuvers

So does that mean that FAA did not require this?