The youngest boomers are 60. The average age of a Fortune 500 CEO is 58, and lots of them are in their seventies.

They're not (all) as dumb as it sounds to you.

There's a bunch of organizational behaviour research that shows you can motivate employees to work harder by giving some of them nice stuff. Corner office, parking space, cubical by the window, whatever, so long as it's desireable and conspicuous. It turns out that somebody else having nice stuff motivates quite a bit better than higher pay, so it's a very economical method.

Flexible working hours is one of the ultimate nice things. It works great if Bob breezes into his corner office at noon and leaves at three, no doubt to do Important Things. It doesn't work so well if Bob just doesn't come in at all, because nobody sees him doing it. It works even less well if everyone is working from home, because then none of the other dirty tricks works either.

Not terabytes. A big chat-type system might be 100 GB, but you can do very well with a lot less. You can do very well with a LOT less if you stop trying to encode the world's knowledge into the thing and let it search the web.

The pallet was jetisonned, not de-orbited. You can't predict where something that you just let float away from the space station is going to land until just before it comes down.

None of those things are true. Labs go through consumables like mad. There's nothing unlimited about an isolated one. They're also not the least bit simple. Lots of the equipment is also bulky, delicate and needs very precise sample preparation. Electron microscopy, for a fairly mundane example. Do you seriously think every mission hasn't already been packed with as many instruments of as many different kinds as possible already?

We have lots of BSL 4 labs on Earth, if you're being paranoid. We also have lots and lots of lower level biohazard labs that would be able to study rock samples from a dead planet perfectly safely.

It's just possible that thousands of professional scientists know more about this than you do, you know?

But it doesn't just cost double--it's using thousands of times more mass dedicated to fuel and transport hardware to recover few small samples.

It isn't really. There have been a bunch of proposals for stationary lander sample return missions in the ~10 tonnes in Earth orbit range, about half a Curiosity. China's and the various iterations of the NASA-ESA plans are a little heavier than Curiosity, but not twice and certainly not thousands.

To be fair, you should be able to build a space capsule that's going to work without having to launch protypes to space repeatedly. SpaceX did that: the first Dragon 2 to go to space was an unmanned demonstration flight, then was destroyed during a static fire. The second one carried crew and is currently docked to the ISS.

You should also be able to bolt together long-used, very expensive parts and be pretty sure they're going to work. That's SLS.

If you're actually doing something new, experiments seem to be definitely the way to go. Most of the companies who are actually doing something new do a lot of experiments.

TV leads me to believe that fencing stolen goods often yields much less than 30% of their value.

It's not new functionality.

For all of the Kconfig* configuration files throughout the source tree, the indentation is somewhat different. Lines under a config definition are indented with one tab, while help text is indented an additional two spaces.

That's unchanged from at least ~2016, which is the oldest conveniently retrievable:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/htm....

Also, there are old commits replacing spaces with tabs. Here's one from 2016:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/p...

I guess if Slashdot needs to go for enraged commenter engagement to sell ads, manufactured Linux kernel disputes is better than whatever the greens versus the purples are doing this week in Americaball.

That's the crux of it. Does it really matter if about half of the movies produced each year are original screenplays when the overwhelming majority of that 50% are things like arthouse, foreign language, and budget productions that have a very limited amount of screentime, even less marketing, and only get shown on a small number of screens so the chances of the average movie goer finding out about it, let alone seeing it, are near zero? Cinemas are businesses after all, and if the latest Disney prequel/sequel/spinoff/remake in a franchise they've already been mining for decades has the better prospects of putting butts on seats, then that's what they're going to show.

While I'm sure a lot of those original movies are, in fact, total crap and deserve their obscurity, there are still going to be some diamonds in the rough - plenty of what are now regarded as classics (cult or otherwise) did not do well at the box office during their original runs. If you want more quality originality, then the problems you need to solve are finding those diamonds, and making the public at large aware that this is a movie they need to see so the cinemas provide the screentime, and that's something I'm sure producers of those movies have been working on since the days of silent movies and still don't have a solution for. I'm not holding my breath.

Only if those 20% have evolved to be much more capable of surviving subsequent bleaching events as well and are not just clinging on to life while in a severely weakend state. While the reality is likely to be somewhere in between, the other extreme - 80% of what remains dying off every 14 months - would mean that we're very rapidly going to be into percentages of surviving coral on a par with the active ingredients in homeopathic remedies. Corals have had a long time to evolve defences against natural bleaching events, which has mostly worked or they'd be extinct already, but it's far from certain that evolution will be able to keep pace with the rate of increasing temperature levels and number of events we're now seeing.

There's also the habitat loss angle to consider. They're probably singling out two of the worst case species here, or maybe these are just being monitored more closely because they are already endangered, but when coral colonies collapse they take a lot of other species in the area that depend on them down too rendering the entire area largely sterile compared to before the collapse. That's not good at all as it leads to a general reduction is biodiversity which can take a lot longer to recover from, if it happens at all, and the implications of that could easily reverberate up the food chain until it starts to impact our already dwindling oceanic food supply.

Make sure to get one of those ones from the hardware store with no security pins that any idiot with a rake and five minutes on YouTube can pick. Better yet, find a lazy locksmith that just keys all locks the same because it's easier that way.

Computer people like to think they invented crappy security and "back in my day" types like to agree with them.

I had a particular electrical engineering professor on my PhD committee. He told me one time that when his students made spelling mistakes in their code he told them that rather than correcting the spelling mistakes, they should make macros that fix the problem.

I was of the opinion that this was a bad idea. The software engineering prof who was also on my committee almost had a heart attack.

It's a release candidate, so he's done exactly as you recommended, except N+1 instead of 2. Nobody fixes an N+2 problem anyway.

I think you probably meant to reply to the grandparent.