You're thinking of Soylent Brown.

You can't do it through a capabilities interface, even?

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.

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.

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.

Proper responsibility? No, you have that wrong. They did everything they had to do.

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"?

What the fuck does "writer" mean here?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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...

Property tax is still an indirect tax on economic activity, as I pointed out above, since the value of property is defined by economic activity (whether the property is actually used or not), and since property tax directly affects the cost of all economic activity involving property which, ultimately, is all economic activity or so close to all as makes no difference. There may be some business, somewhere, which requires no capital expenditures and takes place entirely on public land, but it certainly isn't the norm. It's true that some economic activity is more capital intensive than other economic activity, but I don't see how that implies that economic activity which is less capital-intensive necessarily makes fewer claims on government or should be taxed less.

And I still don't see that the Broken Window Fallacy is a counterexample. Perhaps I'm dense. Or perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "counterexamples". At best it seems to highlight that economic activity and property value aren't the same thing, but I don't think that was ever in dispute.

So for those several times per year, rent a car.

I lived in Colorado for three years, and regularly (almost monthly) made the 8-hour drive to my parents' home. Most of that time I had two vehicles, a Dodge Durango (needed to tow the camp trailer or boat, and to haul the whole family), and a Nissan LEAF, which was my commuter and the around-the-town vehicle when the whole family wasn't going. Given the amount of gas the Durango consumes I found it more economical (when all the kids weren't going) to rent a Prius or similar for the trips home. It worked great. Some unanticipated benefits were that the car tends to get pretty dirty when you drive it a thousand-plus miles in a short stretch, cluttered up with fast food containers and whatnot -- and there's an increased risk of spills and stains. So it's nice to just let Hertz deal with all of that.

Anyway, the point is that it's perfectly reasonable to choose a vehicle that is optimized for 95% of your driving, and rent one that is optimized for the other 5%. It can actually be very cost-effective. I've been looking into getting rid of the Durango and renting when I need a toy hauler, but so far it looks like the premiums charged for those sorts of vehicles make it a non-starter vs my paid-off SUV. Also, I haul the boat or trailer almost weekly during the summer, so the frequency of rentals would get annoying.

Nice assertion. I'll counter with one of my own: 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. As long as the people in the car need to refuel every few hours, all you need is enough range to go as far as the people can, and a sufficiently-fast recharge time that by the time the people eat the car is ready to go again.

What's needed for EVs to compete isn't battery swapping, it's lower prices for vehicles with adequate range. The Model S has the range required, now. The Nissan LEAF and similar cars are in the ballpark on price. When we get a $25K (new) EV sedan with a 250-mile range, they'll sell like hotcakes in suburban middle-class America, and pollution levels in places like LA will decline dramatically in just a few years.

This isn't to say that battery swapping never makes sense, or that better highway and home charging infrastructure (particularly for apartment dwellers) doesn't matter, but solving the price/range problem will put EVs over the hump and the rest will follow naturally.

That's a completely different issue. Even without quick-recharge swaps, it's certainly possible to replace an old battery. But you're going to have to pay for that new battery (less a rebate for the value of the old one, I'm sure).

Every home I ever visited within my extended family was under 2000sf, and many of them were under 1300sf, until my parents bought a 2100sf home in the late 1990s. That was the biggest in the family until I bought my 3800sf house.

Go look at older neighborhoods, particularly those built before 1980. They're far smaller than we see today. Home sizes overall are growing, with the average in 2014 being 2600 square feet, larger than the 2400sf that was the average during the housing boom.