Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 3, Funny) 397
I've heard it tastes like ass.
You're thinking of Soylent Brown.
I've heard it tastes like ass.
You're thinking of Soylent Brown.
There isn't a "revoke privileges" kernel feature either despite years of trying (it is a hard problem).
You can't do it through a capabilities interface, even?
That means userspace have to have a sophisticated session manager like logind with kernel integration in order to keep the multi-seat sessions safe.
Why would it need to be married to the init daemon? That's the part that's unclear. cgroups permit management of process groups no matter how, why, or when they were created, or who created them. It doesn't matter if init starts the process, any other daemon could have done that job.
Ok, so it's a small sample size, but every article I've submitted has appeared exactly as I typed it.
Well, it's possible that you made higher-quality submissions than I did, or that you just tripped over lazy editors. It would be interesting to have some actual statistics on this, but hahaha. I mean, the editors are already lazy.
All the init-systems in use at the time where just "slightly improved SysVinit" style init-systems.
You're missing the point, deliberately I hope because the alternative is too pathetic to contemplate. Those init systems were in use at the time because you could swap between them freely. Systemd deliberately breaks that state of affairs and that is what is primarily wrong with it.
They all relied on executable config scripts to manage daemons, and none of them tried to step up an take proper responsibility for the boot and init process.
Proper responsibility? No, you have that wrong. They did everything they had to do.
You are probably thinking of the old cgroups interface, but that is being deprecated in the near future in favor of the "single writer"/"unified hierarchy" that requires a writer that abstract away the kernel cgroup API so userland doesn't use it directly.
Oh great, more influence of systemd shitting up my Linux. Just want I wanted to hear about. So instead of a simple, working interface to cgroups, they want to make it harder to use. Why would you do that? Just to make systemd look more useful? You make it harder to do what they do in a script so that people like me can't say "but a script could do that"?
To my knowledge nobody in the non-systemd camp is even working on similar ideas, or even on an alternative cgroups single writer implementation.
What the fuck does "writer" mean here?
Isn't that an argument that everything should be written in shell script?
It's an argument that everything which reasonably can and should be written in a shell script (that is, without compromising security or performance) should be. A shitload of what makes a modern Linux go is just scripting. Sadly, many of them are python scripts; shell scripting will do the jobs they do without exception, but people jumped on the new shiny (like they did with perl, as well) and that results in a system where you have to understand three scripting languages to maintain it, not just one. Clearly scripting is not a panacea. You have to understand what you are doing.
People often argue that shell scripts are slow, but they aren't if you have free memory, because process creation is cheap on Unix. Creating new shells, firing off all those inlines, is as cheap as thread creation on Windows. It's not a problem these days, when RAM is basically free.
Everything which can reasonably be implemented as a very small shell script absolutely should be. Anything which legitimately needs to be written in C absolutely should be. The right tool, not just a random tool.
Battery swapping has negligible effect on the ability of EVs to compete with ICEVs for consumer travel. The only case where it's of use is in long-distance, non-stop travel, which is a miniscule percentage of road miles and which can in most cases be done with a rental vehicle.
You don't think being forced to abandon your vehicle and hire another one is a significant effect? This is why people laugh at the proponents of EVs. You don't actually give a shit about cars. To you, a car is just a box. But most people have a relationship with their car, it takes on personality to them. Being forced to walk away from it and drive another vehicle in which the person is less comfortable is a major event which significantly impairs the vehicle's suitability.
Now, can anybody explain to me why battery swapping is worth additional credits in the first place? CARB's mandate is supposed to be cleaner air.
The idea is that fast refueling is supposed to draw more people to alternative-fuel vehicles, because the idea is that some people don't buy AFVs because they are less convenient than gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles. The extent to which the idea was tied to fuel cells, though, is definitely driven by the mechanism you stated.
Muscle cars were always about huge engines and (therefore) heavy frames. That is even more true today than it was in the 80s.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The body of the modern Corvette is substantially lighter than the body of the Corvette of the 80s.
While the muscle cars have gotten better too, the difference in mass to power ratio between the two is still tilted against them. Go drive a Mazda MX5 (still partially owned by Ford I think, if that matters to you
It's hilarious you mention the MX5 because that's a vehicle that was deliberately made less powerful than possible, at least in the first and latest generations. And the current Corvette will absolutely shit on it.
Look, the international motoring press has been quite clear: there is no better value in high-performance automobiles than the current Corvette. Period, the end, take that one home and sleep with it.
Would you accept as evidence that the user, within 5 minutes time, was driving off with a fully charged battery?
Of course not. Battery gauges are made up. You think the battery is charged because the car tells you so, but even cellphones lie about their charge status to the user to control their behavior. They could also just be doing a super-fast-charge where they're connecting the battery cooling lines to an external cooler, charging up to nearly full, and instructing the car to lie to you about the charge state.
I want to see a picture of a battery swap actually happening, or I won't believe that it is actually happening. Or, how about independent confirmation from a neutral third party? The battery swap program has so far been demonstrated only with smoke, mirrors, and numbers.
But guess what? The Corvette is the best if you like Corvettes, and I don't. Lots of other people also don't. I remember leaving those big lumbering beasts in the dust in a street ported RX-7 with Weber carbs when I was 20.
But guess what? The Corvette of today is a completely different vehicle. It's got half as many parts as that corvette you dusted when you were 20. Today, the stock Corvette driver will fucking eat your RX-7 if he is anywhere near as good a driver as you are.
Show me something that does more than consume more gas than 10 reasonable cars combined while going in essentially a straight line, and I'll be impressed. Detroit doesn't make that.
You think that because you're ignorant, but that's the only reason. In fact, the 'vette has bank deactivation and is a relative fuel-sipper for its displacement...
However most of these people were on MySpace and didn't give Facebook any recognition when it was new.
Heck when I got on facebook it required a
I blame the metric system.
As compared to Facebook?
Try landing on Gilly in Kerbal Space Program... any sneeze, in the near-zero gravity of a small asteroid/comet, will send you tumbling endlessly.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
