Did they ever catch that rogue engineer who wrote the Dieselgate code, surreptitiously planted it into the repository, cancelled the orders of the urea injectors, changed the assembly line to omit installation of the urea injectors, and modified the owner manual and full service manual to remove all references to the urea injectors? I bet it was the same guy that actually killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

I know I'll get downmodded to oblivion for complimenting Rust, but this is one of my favorite aspects about it. Cargo automatically downloads all of the dependencies recursively and builds everything in a single command. It does this in the same manner that most other modern languages have supported by default.

Spotify recently alleged that one of my band's albums was on a playlist designed to have bot listeners boost plays. The problem is that anyone can add songs to a playlist, and despite the fact that we didn't do it they're treating us as guilty until proven innocent. They fined us more money than we ever made from that album and the fine will be deducted from our total earnings. Also, that album is now banned on Spotify and the only way to get it back on there is to re-record it so that it doesn't get recognized by their algorithms. The worst part is that I'm not aware of anything we can do to prevent incidents like this from happening with our other albums, other than removing all of our music. As much as I can't stand them, if you're not on Spotify it's very difficult for new listeners to consistently discover you. But since this is a hobby for us, it's probably worth it to leave based on principle alone rather than put up with their abuse.

If you want to make money in the music industry, the last person you want to be is the person making the music.

Every authoritarian regime needs a circus to entertain and distract the people from all of the fuckery. With Trump, he's both the authoritarian and the clown.

Russia is doing everything it can to escalate itself into WWIII. Unfortunately, it makes sense from Putin's perspective since the only thing propping up Russia's economy, and thus his tenure in power, is war.

Now all I have to do is provide my bank account details and let them deduct whatever they want - they seem like a competent and trustworthy bunch!

It is almost entirely driven by investments in tech, which appears to be immune.

In the 2000's, I remember hearing the exact same thing about real estate. That's a great sign you're in a bubble - everyone believes that the sector is immune from corrections. And it always is, right up to the point that it isn't.

A big part of me hates how many companies treat their workers as expendable, and European laws do a much better job of protecting workers' rights than in the U.S. However, I've seen the other side of the spectrum have some positive benefits as well. The company I work for hires many people, sometimes without even having a particular role in mind for that person. The primary goal is to find as much talent as possible and provide an environment that can find their strengths and foster the growth of their skills. This strategy has led to numerous people being hired without a specific role in mind and subsequently working their way up within the company, although many more have washed out along the way. However, if it was far more difficult to let go of unproductive people, our hiring process would likely drop to the absolute minimum and I can't imagine our teams would have nearly as much talent. I imagine there's got to be some middle ground that can improve workers' rights while allowing companies to be nimble and flexible.

I agree that the article is very interesting, but I think it's far from conclusive that the chromosomes are the primary contributing factor of longevity. It does seem like evolution has a strong preference for having different sex chromosomes on the sex of the primary provider, which itself is fascinating. I think an interesting follow-up study would be to find species of animals in which the primary provider has the same sex chromosomes and see which sex lives longer. That would settle which factor, chromosomes or being the primary provider, has more influence in the longevity of a particular sex.

It's certainly possible that this correlation plays a role in the difference of longevity between the sexes. However, there are plenty of other explanations which can also be playing a significant role for humans in particular, including ones the study doesn't mention:

• - Stress: men are the primary providers, which means that they're often expected to earn more than their partner. If they need to take some unpaid time off due to stress or career development, it's going to have a disproportionate effect on the family's income than it would for their partner. Either they need to forego taking the time off or they need to minimize it. Oddly enough, female birds are the primary providers and I suspect this has far more to do with the difference than the chromosomes themselves
• - Hazardous working conditions: men disproportionately take dangerous jobs necessary for modern society. Roles in the military, first responders, builders, heavy machinery operators, miners, mechanics, etc. often have much higher rates of death than the office jobs that women are more likely to have. And then you have terrible work environment factors as well, such as exposures to dangerous chemicals. Similarly with female birds, since they're the primary providers, they're more exposed to predators while gathering resources for offspring
• - Suicide: men commit suicide almost five times the rate of women. And this rate increases significantly in men following a divorce. The obvious choice for men is not to get divorced, but women file for divorce in the vast majority of cases

I think there may be something to this study, but I'm not convinced that it's the chromosomes that are the source of the difference in longevity. It's far more likely that being the primary provider, regardless of chromosomes, makes you more susceptible to an early death.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. At the same time, it seems like a terrible idea to force U.S. companies to produce half of their chips using subpar technologies in an extremely competitive global market when going against foreign companies that have already surpassed us and don't have such foolish restrictions. This will only give China a much larger advantage while making it more expensive for Americans to get the highest quality chips.

You can always game the system. Trump of all people should understand that

The intent is not to produce results - it's to produce the appearance of results.

I can't imagine AMD wanting anything to do with Intel's fab process. Intel fabs have been struggling for years and they're barely keeping up with TSMC and yet AMD is going to use them to build their processors?

The article notes that there is a trade/political dimension to an AMD-Intel deal as well

Oh, there it is! AMD, blink twice if you're doing this against your will. I guess they can always produce a bunch of low-end chips nobody cares about on Intel's fabs and Trump won't know the difference.

I disagree with this characterization. I'm a "both sides are bad" kinda guy and I can rant for many hours against either side. Sure, I feel that one side is far worse than the other, but I recognize that the shittiness on my own side sets the bar low enough for the other side to clear far more often than they should. Unfortunately, every time I make suggestions to improve my own side I'm labeled as a supporter of the other side (and sometimes far worse). So it's easier to just sit back and let everyone keep doing the same old thing: blaming the other side for all of their problems. I just live with the consolation that the truth always has a way of coming to light, even if it has to take some really long detours to get there.