He's failed in every war aim

He's gained about 20% of Ukrainian territory so far. Sure it's far from the 100% that he sought, but in his mind 20% is far more than 0%. And all he had to do was trade the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that aren't him or anyone he cares about. And he just "won" about 87% of the popular vote for re-election. We can't defeat our enemies if we do not understand how they think and I don't think many of my fellow westerners understand how Putin thinks. In order to do that, we have to recognize that he's a true psychopath who has no problem throwing endless numbers of his own people to certain death just for the benefit of gaining a relatively modest amount of territory. Any rational person would consider the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people to be a terrible loss but to him it's just a currency he uses to trade for land, and any gain whatsoever is a win despite the cost since he's not paying with his own currency (his life). So in his mind it's not the "win" he wanted but it's still very much a "win". And that doesn't even begin to cover the growing normalization of Russian aggression without direct western resistance, which will only further embolden him.

Is it like Proxmox?

We will use discarded human embryos and comply with both domestic and international rules

Do the parents of these "discarded embryos" know that their embryos are going to this Dr. Moreau wannabe? I mean do they actually know or is it shrouded in legalese and buried in the middle of page 47 of the Terms of Service?

I stopped watching the NFL this past year. I'm not sure if it's due to gambling, but in the past several years it kept feeling more like watching a WWE match than a genuine contest. I don't know if it's always been like that and only my perspective has changed or if there really is something to it, but the games seemed to have more of a backstory to them, the refs seemed to get a lot more involved in each subsequent postseason, and some teams seemed to be propped up as heroes while others portrayed as villians. Either way, my life hasn't changed much by abandoning the NFL, so I don't regret it for a second.

While some people truly like vinyl, my guess is that most people are buying it because it offers the largest and most detailed artwork and then proceed to listen to the digital versions of the songs. It's really tough to play vinyl on your phone or in your car.

These up-to-date sources [masteringthemix.com] beg [musicguymixing.com] to [veniamastering.studio] differ [weraveyou.com].

I was going to say the same thing, albeit without as many links. With that said, the best vinyl I've ever heard just barely approaches the levels of CDs but with all of the downsides of vinyl and almost no other perceptible benefits.

The loudness war began in the 90's [wikipedia.org] and was hitting its stride in the early 2000's when streaming was still in its infancy. Streaming may be contributing to the entrenchment of over-compression, but it had nothing to do with its genesis.

Please reread his post. He wasn't suggesting that streaming caused the loudness wars, but instead the opposite. Streaming sites got together and introduced a "loudness penalty" which normalizes the songs in a way that makes them sound even worse if you upload an overly-compressed track. Your first link mentions creating separate masters for streaming which is done almost exclusively to get your music as loud as possible without triggering the loudness penalty. I believe the loudness penalty is applied at levels lower than what CDs can typically handle, so streaming tracks may actually have more dynamic range than their CD siblings.

I'm not surprised at all that Apple modified the behavior of a command-line utility to do something their way, especially since they've had the mentality that they know better than their users for quite some time. However, it really bothers me that they didn't change the version number. Who knows how many poor bastards will be banging their heads against the wall trying to troubleshoot why curl on their Mac isn't acting like the same version of curl on their other devices or the same version that they built themselves. This is a pet peeve of mine: any time you change any code, you modify the version number. At best Apple was being lazy and at worst they're being deceptive, but neither is a good look.

And that is the expected behavior you will get with all standard calls to curl. But from the summary, when a user specifies the "--cacert" option to curl, the user is explicitly stating that they only want to trust the cert provided by that parameter.

Then everyone's new EULA is "we can do anything we want with your data".

They effectively already do whatever they want with your data by changing the terms later. At least requiring them to say it upfront would force them to be remotely honest about it.

We need to gut the ability of corporations to constantly change the terms in which they operate. It should be relatively simple (famous last words) to create legislation that says that companies are bound by the terms of their own EULA which existed at the time that the data was collected. I only consented to providing certain data based on the "contract" we had at the time I provided it. If any company can later decide to change those terms to whatever they want, then the social contract completely breaks down. I mean, what the fuck is the point of even having an agreement if one party can later change it to be whatever they want whenever they want?

That is exactly what I was thinking. So they have a scheduler and are possibly writing directly to the disk instead of using a file system. There's a lot more to modern operating systems than those two components. I'd be far more inclined to believe that DBOS is truly a complete operating system if it's running its own implementation of a TCP/IP stack inside the database. And even if this thing is its own OS, what fundamental advantage would it have over something like Yocto Linux with a custom scheduler and writing directly to the block devices? It seems like a very interesting research project but if there's any commercial viability for this, it wasn't communicated well at all.

The whole point of banning TikTok and forcing it to divest a subsidiary in the U.S. is to ensure that ALL of our social media platforms are centralized and hosted exclusively within the U.S.

Why not just flood tiktok with hundreds of thousands of gigabytes of useless data

The internet already did that - it didn't seem to work.

How do you think governments work? We collectively agree to submit to authority in return for a greater ability to cooperate

Agreed. And in a functioning democracy, when we disagree with our government we're able to let them know without fear of reprisal. The way that the U.S. government is working so hard to make sure that there isn't a single social media network that isn't within their purview is extremely disconcerting for people who value the ability to speak out against the things the U.S. government is doing.

If you think you have sovereignty, I invite you to try something illegal and then arguing in court that the court has no authority over you

Sovereignty doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want with no consequences. Exercising sovereignty requires the ability to be able to express your displeasure at your government's conduct so that you can vote out the people that are engaging in that conduct. Once TikTok, or some subsidiary of it, is under the purview of the U.S. government, there will be no other viable social media platform available in the U.S. while being hosted in another country. And conveniently, one of the next items on the Supreme Court's docket is to review the Section 230 provisions of the Communications Decency Act and the outcome of that decision could drastically affect what protections, as well as liabilities, social media companies have within the U.S.

Citizens don't have sovereignty

Every wannabe-dictator on the planet dreams that their citizens adopt the mindset that the only rights they have are what the government feels fit to bestow upon them.

The point is to make it more difficult for Putin or Xi to run agitprop campaigns.

That would be great, but how can you go about enforcing that without encroaching on the free speech rights of your own citizens on a platform that's meant for the exchange of information across the world? This is an extremely slippery slope towards clamping down on our own freedom and it's being welcomed by people that favor punishment of economic rivals over preservation of our own rights. We can't defeat China and Russia by devolving down to their level.