Fun fact, there has been two Linux distributions officially certified as "UNIX". Inspur and Huawei for whatever reason bothered to get them officially certified.

On the flip side, there's an odd sentence in the XDG specification that explicitly qualifies the wording around filesystem feature requirements to apply only to Unix-like platforms. Clearly they had Unix in mind, but they explicitly bothered to give an implicit pass to any hypothetical non-Unix, non-Unix-like platforms.

Not nearly as irritating as having dozens of random dot subdirectories in the root of your home directory.

The first issue costs a few developers a few days of their time to fix. The second is a problem that nags millions of users for eternity.

I don't think treason could have been made to apply. It's defined in the Constitution, and the definition is a *LOT* stricter than colloquial use.

Ah, but who is the consumer of those resources. Perhaps Google is selling compute to other companies. That could be quite a profitable approach.

Because at this rate, by my math, the number of AI cores Google requires will exceed the number of atoms in the visible universe within about 120 years.

FWIW, Amazon lost money every quarter for nearly a decade. It hasn't been doing that recently.

It can be a viable strategy to lean into bad news perhaps even more than is warranted. When you proclaim in 3-4 months time that you've overcome that disadvantage, people find that marginally more credible, even if that is wrong.

When you speak *exclusively* in CEO optimism speak, at some point people just stop believing anything positive you say.

They're hardware vendors, so it's likely disabled in either the hardware or the firmware.

1) "give me liberty or give me death" was always a minority position.
2) Things that work well when people live in rural areas with slow communication don't necessarily work well when people live in dense clusters (i.e. cities) and conversely.
3) It is always the job of the individual to assign weights to his Bayesian priors. The state may control the costs of your actions, but should not be allowed to control your beliefs.

I hope I've covered what you were asking, but it was a bit unclear.

That there is no evidence to support it does not mean it cannot be true. But it should inform your assessment of probabilities.

Bingo. That is an absolutely correct factually true statement.
What you left out is that the job of the individual is to correctly assign probabilities.

Odd, I thought he was working for Putin.

Insulting people doesn't help convince them.

Be careful. It has not been absolutely proven that vaccines never cause XXX. It probably can't be. It's just that there is no valid evidence that vaccines do cause autism. (At least that I know of.)

The original claim was a deliberate fraud, but many people believed it, and their part in it was not a "deliberate fraud", at least not on their part. But they *did* believe it because they wanted to, in the face of contrary evidence.