What happens in a lot of large companies is that somebody has an epic plan they are fanatical about, they put it in motion, leave and then nobody else has a clue what to do with the results of the plan or even if it was a good plan to start with.
Somebody probably had an idea of what to do with Nokia and they unleashed the Elop, but years later having a gutted low price bargain in what is left of the raided Nokia what do you do next with the broken shards of a company that used to make phones but doesn't even have an assembly plant any more?

While I really liked the idea of a Linux phone from Nokia I have to wonder if those sales where just the faithful.

Considering the N900 sold mostly on word of mouth and had almost zero advertising dollars pushing it you may be right, but they still sold quite a few, selling out quickly when available, despite that.
I don't think it would have been anywhere near iPhone level sales if they had pushed the N9 but I'm pretty sure it would have hit full digit percentages of the global market.

The old Nokia died completely independent of Microsoft

They were number one in market share when Elop signed on.

I presume that those on a H1B visa will be let go first, of course?

For a variety of reasons, some of them good ones - no.
Put yourself in their position, you've come halfway around the world to take a job you can't back out of, even if you get treated badly, or you get deported. You really want it to be a two way street and it to be hard to be fired from such a position.
Of course such indentured servitude should never have been allowed in nearly every case but that's a different story. There's a lot of skilled people looking for work despite the pretended "shortage" where the confected story is that there is no choice other than to bring in cheaper people from overseas.

China, perhaps (there might be regulatory issues associated with moving US loans overseas, even if China had banks chartered in the US), but probably not Chinese banks which would be interested in relatively solid loan portfolios. US securities are still seen as guaranteed payoffs, so even if the economy sours, they can still be as certain as possible of a return. Loan assets don't have that luxury.

However, I've had concerns about the Chinese economy for a few years. They're much more shadowy about these things than Western government, and it's hard to say how much money they have. The Chinese government may be hiding a fiscal nightmare that is worse in percentages than Greece and will certainly have more worldwide impact than a complete collapse of the Greek economy.

I said "crap" not "words".

i got to fuckstick my eyes glazed over and i just couldn't anymore

sorry, you're too remedial, just not worth the effort

Not directly no. It basically goes like this: Union regulations require that the certain members can administer medications.
CFOs dictate that they charge for those people's time, but to increase the bill they break out each medication separately. So the nurse that is there to administer 5 medications gets to charge up the time 5x's (once for each medication). So if it took 5 minutes to administer the medication, the result is a 25 minute charge.
Now, unions influence which members (RN vs regular, but qualified, nurse) can administer the medications thereby influencing the cost of the medication through the time allocation since the hospital has no choice but to use more expensive staff to administer the medication.

What percentage of a hospital's expenses are made up by total labor costs? Go ahead, take a guess.

Now take a guess at the differential between the bill presented to a patient paying their own bill and an insurance company.

The reason it costs that much is a systemic issue; solve that actual issue and you'll solve a lot of the health care cost issues. Only part of that issue is related to unions, but it still is a significant factor.

You make a lot of the $19 that a patient is charged for an aspirin. How much do you think the average nurse makes, and do you believe it is too much? Do you also believe doctors are overpaid? Do you also believe the corporations that run for-profit hospitals are making too much profit?

You mistake the price a corporation charges for a service with the cost of the labor for providing that service. You try to put the exorbitant cost of health care on the people who are providing that care, when in fact, the most expensive parts of health care are impacted barely at all by labor.

but you really should attribute the stupid scenario to the person who suggested it (Hint: it were you).

Quote it to me.

Do I have to give English lessons? It's annoying paperwork they may not want to do, but they know it's a very good idea so they do it anyway. It's just like not wanting to brush your teeth.

WTF is your issue? The original question (go on, look it up, the words and thread hasn't changed) was "how to enable permanent swap" . The answer was, and still is, set the correct level of swappiness for the swap

"swapon" is the correct answer, yours is an answer to a different question (that was not asked) about tuning it.

Your failure to understand and conflation of "I dinna calculate RAM demand" with "lucky I have swap" is your own problem. Have you heard of planning?

You really are pushing that "did you think my tech creds are playing video games?" line pretty hard aren't you?
Obviously swap is part of planning for when more RAM gets used than you have calculated - stop acting like you got all your tech skillz from playing video games and try wandering back to reality.

Grow the fuck up. What are you, 16?

So says the guy who led with the platform hate attack and followed with the weirdness about systems turned off. What is your game here? Why go rabid over little quotes from linux memory management for newbies?

Which is a sensible thing to do here. After all, most decisions which harm people are made by people concerning their own health and safety.

So, do we suspect mere incompetence, or is the OCP one of those 'open' projects where the lead is all gung-ho about industry collaboration and openness and such; so long as they are losing to somebody else, and then more or less immediately drops all but the barest vestiges of 'open' once they have the improvements they came for?

I certainly can't rule out the former, especially since a bunch of preening software narcissists who "move fast and break things" and are proud of it don't seem like naturals for either project management or hardware engineering; but I'd also be unsurprised if this was Facebook's 'shit, Google is hammering us on hardware and operations costs per ad served, we need to beat some fear into our vendors...' project, and now that it has succeeded in doing that, there really isn't any advantage for them in bothering to improve, maintain, or prevent from being watered down into meaninglessness, the 'spec;. Any guesses?

"I get it; some asshole said he was open; but he was only open for business."

I don't know if it's a good idea or not(probably depends on who you are, and I'm sure that there will be some people who chose incorrectly); but is it really a surprise that OCP would be doing their testing on the cheap 'n cheerful side of things?

It was my understanding that their premise, from the beginning, was that existing hardware vendors were excessively focused on adding costly, thermally demanding, and often proprietary, features at the hardware level that were unnecessary if you were willing to compensate for their absence in your software design.

There is obviously some level of reliability below which no compensation at the software level is possible(if you can't run the algorithm for detecting errors because it keeps glitching out, it's probably not going to work); but the impression they always conveyed was that many of the more sophisticated reliability mechanisms are really features aimed at people who are substantially less able to cope with failure; and are therefore willing to pay substantially more for hardware that can invisibly paper over a variety of moderately serious failures and allow the software on top to run without incident; rather than buying lots of cheap hardware that has a risk of going down in a screaming heap.

So long as nobody gets any stupid optimistic ideas, I don't really see the issue. Sure, if Facebook were about sending men to mars, they should seriously consider having three CPUs running in lockstep and voting on all operations and so on; but this project is about delivering as many ad impressions per dollar as possible; no reason to get worked up over the occasional glitch.