Clearly, these 'fossil-fuel' companies exist because a demand exists for fossil-fuels. It may be a meaningful career for at least some people in the next generation, until we are completely free of fossil fuel requirements. If these Universities believe that some companies are bad, and they have educated their students properly, then they need to *encourage* their students to get in there. Get people into those companies who actually want to transition those companies away from their current product and into sustainable resources. You need people in these companies who will stop them from environmentally irresponsible practices. You need people who will divert part of the companies profits into research and development of alternative/sustainable energy sources.

Its a dumb move for their students, a misguided publicity stunt and more insidiously it represents the toxic 'cancel' culture of boycotting , rather than engaging, anything you disagree with.

Thankfully, it is:
> University of the Arts London, University of Bedfordshire, and Wrexham Glyndwr University join Birkbeck, University of London

So, basically, none that matter.

If I know Apple, they will probably make a USB-C port on the phone, and then sell a USB-C to Lightning adapter to all their users can use the Lightning chargers because that's the one that has the Apple logo on it.

Moron detected. The EU only pushed for standardization. To determine which exact plug/protocol the standard must ne set, the industry engineers were called in to give the opinion. It's not politicians, it's the industry that decided USB-C.

I am not sure how Mastodon will be able to scale to the same level as Twitter. It depends on generous benefactors running their own server and letting others register. This will inevitably lead to fragmentation.

Uh...it's obvious that Apple is trying to circumvent the EU requirement by making sure that the non-USB 9th generation models of the iPad seem more attractive to customers. We in the EU absolutely like this intervention.

Your logic is beyond moronic:You can get across a river using a bridge and a boat. 10 companies run taxis on the bridge. One greedy company runs boats, even when they are completely capable of running taxis just so that they don't have to compete with other taxi companies and so they can sell lifejackets to their customers.

Law intervenes and says boats damage the river wildlife. They should run taxis on the bridge instead. So, these greedy bastards start taxi services that you can only use if you also buy a fucking lifejacket from them.

The reason it is popular in science is because it allows you to very very rapid prototyping and does not have a "toolchain". Because of this, it has a lot of packages available , which makes it an even better language for rapid prototyping. It also can use C-based libraries, which makes it very useful. In recent years, its integration with Jupyter notebooks and VS Code makes an excellent set of IDEs available for it.

It is essenitally
1. Matlab,and Mathematica without the cost,
2. C without pain but with the possibility to get near as good performace by using someone elses C-based package (Numpy for eg.).

It's basically really really useful for someone who cares greatly about implementing a certain computation for analysis / processing etc. but does not care so much about if it is the most optimal and efficient way of doing so.

First, like this : Ukrainian hackers help the American farmers to crack the tractors John Deere. In stock Also, there is also an electronic catalog of the original parts of the spare parts for the whole equipment manufactured by John Deere
: https://oborudow.ru/en/salon/p...

Oh the irony.

And then at the level of the hardware....the computer is in the end turning cogs...the cog will turn, levers will move, hydraulics will pressurize....even with another/no computer controlling it.

I think that grey is turning you senile. Replacing factory ECUs is so common a simple Google search leads you to hundreds of third party modifiers.

Also, the right to repair thing is about making it possible for a *consumer* to repair/replace components without being held hostage to the manufacturer.

Are you too daft to realize that "consumer' means an average farmer who is not about to contract 20 engineers to figure out how to get his tractor to start. It's not that the modifications are technologically impossible - the right to repair movement is about whether it is acceptable that repair is purposefully made just difficult enough to prevent the user from doing it themselves.

Right to repair has nothing to do with a the ability of a moderately technologically advanced state to salvage the spoils of war. In all probability, Russia does not even want to use the 5 million $ worth of farm equipment. They successfully deprived Ukranians from using farm equipment for growing food - equipment that Ukranians paid for with Ukranian money. That's already a win from the Russian perspective.

These things have an internal combustion engine, they have tires and gears - none of which absolutely require electronics to work. The whole idea of electronic locks on equipment and vehicles is about raising the difficulty of the bypass beyond the capability/motivation/incentive of the average John Doe who just wants to drive his car to work.

It is absolutely not beyond the capability of an engineering firm with a million dollar contract to reverse engineer the electronics or even simply replace them with others. You still get 5 million $ of farm equipment for 1 million.

If you think that a nation that can build manned spacecraft, nuclear submarines and advanced fighter aircraft (even if badly) does not know how to do this, you are seriously deluded.

Not so much how many likes, but who is liking it.

>Science isn't a popularity contest.

No, but a career in science is. Putting credible authentic science is only a means to an end - gaining enough academic reputation to win that popularity contest.

As a scientist, I have observed that Macs are somewhat popular. The reason is not because they are better, but because
1. many old scientists consider them easier to use
2. many computer scientists see them as the only way to get a high-end machine with a POSIX-like environment, where everything works out of the box

In biological sciences, there is an amazing amount of computer illiteracy among university faculty, and even the most expensive Macs cost less than a month's supply of a single molecular biology reagent (like an antibody).

The budget dent is so minimal there is no reason why you cant by a high-end machine that you feel is easier to use. If it breaks, you can just order a new one. No computer in any biology lab I was in was every repaired. It was not worth the time or the money..

But then, in the real world no one uses SMS except for receiving one-time authentication codes.

> The first thing people do is buy a protective case because they are so flimsy and fragile. So then what was the point of making them so thin in the first place? Is that something people even want, or is it what manufacturers think they want? Most phones are so thin the camera unit doesn't even fit properly and sticks out anyway ruining the entire aesthetic.

People make purchase decisions based on different consideration that day to day utility. A large part of whether people will 'buy' a phone depends how it looks and feels in the shop with 50 other similar looking competing slabs of shiny glass. Manufactures figured this out sometime ago - it's not what they think people want...it's about what they know people will tend to buy.

You see this thing happening over a variety of parameters - over the maturation cycle of the cell phone industry megapixels on cameras, processor speed, screen refresh rate, battery size, screen size etc. have all been used as selling points. Thinness is one of those. Any of these parameters likely has very minimal effect by itself on the practical utility of the phone. I mean, do you really think a 6.2 inch screens are better than 6.1 inch screens ? Is 240 Hz better than 120 Hz to the human eye ? But there you go. Can't blame the manufacturers for the way people are wired.

I am liking this:

1. Wine allows Linux to run Win32 applications
2. WSL allows Win32 to run Linux applications
3. WSA allows Win32 to run Android applications
4. Crostini allows Chrome OS to run Linux
5. Chrome basically allows Linux/Win32 to run ChromeOS

I look forward the day when the choice of OS becomes irrelevant for running applications.