Yes, as I said in the post to which you replied:

But there still needs to be an update, and that might require restarting processes that have already loaded the now-out-of-date rule information, so, yeah, it's not as if the timezone cabal can wave their hands and magically update all the systems out there.

Note that the quoted statement can be made in a number of different countries; if you want proof that a lot of countries fuck around with daylight savings time rules, etc., just download the tzdata files and read.

Presumably by "the library" you mean "the tzdata files"; this involves no code changes. The whole point of the Olson timezone database and library was to remove any knowledge of specific daylight savings time rules from any code whatsoever, so that changes to the rules could be handled without having to change source code, recompile, and relink every program (this was back in 1987, when shared libraries were still somewhat rare on UN*X systems). Thank you, Clorox and company.

But there still needs to be an update, and that might require restarting processes that have already loaded the now-out-of-date rule information, so, yeah, it's not as if the timezone cabal can wave their hands and magically update all the systems out there.

Yes. It could be translated as "more output for the same amount of work", if the increased productivity is per-work-hour productivity. Whether that translates into "less pay for the same amount of work" or not depends on whether wages grow with productivity. In the US, they grew with productivity from the late 1940's until the early 1970's, but haven't done so after that.

Try Germany instead; they appear to work fewer hours than the French, and I have the impression the German economy's doing fairly well.

Yup, a lot of the ideas came from that big socialist left-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation.

So maybe MOAR SOCIALISM would help here.

Presumably the hardware and software to which you're referring is the hardware to manufacture the chips and the software used to design them, considering that the asynchronous processor that was "faster (~3x) and consume less energy (~2x)" was an "asynchronous, Pentium-compatible test chip that ran three times as fast, on half the power, as its synchronous equivalent.", so the asynchronous processors themselves don't have to have a shiny new instruction set architecture. (The original PDP-10 KA10 processor was asynchronous - "[the arithmetic processor] operates asynchronously using hardware subroutines, whereby the start of each operation is triggered by the completion of the previous operation rather than by a trigger from a synchronous timing chain" - but the KS10 was a synchronous microcoded machine using AMD 2900 bit-slices.)

Would an Animatronic President have a birth certificate?

Well, you've heard of it now.

Beware Poe's law.

It's both the descendants of the 36-bit Univac 1108 and the 48-bit-plus-tags Burroughs 6500 (very much like, but not compatible with, the B5000).

And many of them recognize this as well.

If Mach is "the Mach kernel", I don't think it offers UNIX APIs, but at least two OSes based on Mach have passed the Single UNIX Specification test suite (which NT 4.0 hasn't, and which even Interix^Wthe Subsystem for Unix-based Applications hasn't).

Microsoft haven't. I guess they realized that software actually used alternate data streams, so they had to add them back to ReFS, although only "up to 128K for both Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2", so they're more like "big extended attributes" than full alternate data streams.

Are you certain? The ln command, when run without -s, would return an error if you used it under Tiger or earlier?

Or are you referring to hardlinking to directories, which was something UNIX traditionally supported, but which required root permissions (as it was used by the mkdir command to create the . and .. directories), and which was removed at one point (4.2BSD, as that added the mkdir() system call, making the ability of link() to link to a directory unnecessary?), and added back in 10.5 with the introduction of Time Machine, so that it could be used in backup trees as a very hacky form of de-duplication (each backup tree is a complete copy of the file system being backed up, but if there's an older copy of an unchanged file or a directory everything under which is unchanged, the "copy" is done by making a hard link rather than by copying the file to the backup disk).

That's what happens with any backup scheme that does incremental backups - if a file hasn't changed, a copy isn't made.