I initially thought the above headline meant "MacOS capable of running Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon"... where as it appears the article is instead about almost the opposite, an incompatibility with a recent Apple change hampering its ability to run Asahi linux.

I'd rephrase that as: Most people don't understand how much they have to hide, and -- because it's daunting for them to create an alternate tech ecosystem for themselves -- they psychologically push aside whatever nagging worries they have about what they might indeed want to hide.

Put another way: people are addicted to the current status quo, and trapped by their lack of tech expertise. Which is not the same as objectively self-assessing that they have nothing to hide.

Oh, and they are saying that String Theory is a theory that fits in the space of possible theories - it would be really nice to have a different theory to compare.

And what 'requires' the laws of physics to remain stable?

I think, you've missed the purpose of the paper.

It isn't trying to prove a 'theory' about the universe, it's trying to describe the shape of space that all possible theories live in, for the given assumptions.

There's nothing requiring the laws of physics to remain stable and the team aren't trying to imply their is.

They're saying "if" the laws of physics to remain stable across different energy levels, scales etc, than these things we need to think about, to come up with a theory that might be 'provable' in some sense of the word.

Does anyone know if this is overlaps or is related at all to the idea that there are three types of 'time' for different scale interactions? Which I vaguely half-remember.

I will read the article when it is not past my bedtime.

Many Worlds Interpretation.

No. It's more that each photon is matched up with a anti-photon aka the photon being absorbed.

There's no such thing as 'time' and the universe doesn't diverge at every possible moment.

It's just a bit....fuzzy. If you look closely.

... that it was just a typo by a guy naming the device after himself, "Bob"

Any funding for Open Source Maintainers?

Or is this another example of how companies refuse to fund Open Source, and will only pay if it directly benefits themselves?

I doubt the morality of Open Source.

>Thanks to my severance package, I can't collect unemployment right now

I don't know where you live, but in my state in the US, you absolutely can collect unemployment while you are on severance. I've done so twice with full disclosure to the unemployment agency. Maybe double-check your situation?

Dangit, I really wanted to buy a parrot...

My understanding is that this isn't a consequence of a flawed training algorithm or process; it's instead a consequence of the limitations of LLMs, emergent from their training materials. It closely parallels another example I've seen around the net, that of asking an LLM about getting a car to the mechanic, noting it's a sunny day and the mechanic is just a block away, and having the LLM suggest walking... which is a consequence of the bias in training materials toward walking because lots of people make visible posts about their having done so (because it's looked on favorably), whereas people who drive short distances (of which there are many, probably outnumbering walkers) don't trumpet having done so online, leading LLMs to emit advice about walking when possible (and in the case of the mechanic example, having a lack of comprehension of the pivotal aspect of having the car make it with you to the mechanic's shop).

I read about this phenomenon in the young adult novel "The Secret of Terror Castle", published in 1964. Three teenage detectives investigated a mysterious castle where nobody could spend the night without running away in terror. The culprit? Someone playing the lowest notes on a pipe organ to produce the jitters. This book was the first in a much beloved series called "Alfred Hitchcock and the Three Investigators".

Vaughan-Nichols is right about the problem and wrong about the solution. Voluntary pledge funds and tip jars have existed for a decade and the 60% unpaid figure hasn't moved. Sentry is admirable precisely because it's an exception, the model doesn't scale because it depends on individual corporate virtue, which is in shorter supply than VC funding.

Perens' Post Open licensing approach is interesting but creates a two-tier ecosystem: "free for individuals, pay for commercial use" sounds clean until you realize it breaks the fundamental property that made open source eat the world. The moment a license is commercial-use-restricted, it's not open source, it's source-available, and enterprises will treat it accordingly (avoid it, fork it before the license change, or just use the last MIT-licensed version forever).

What's actually needed: mandatory contribution structured as a fee, not a license restriction. Here's one way to do it. Small flat fee on all US commercial revenue above $5M (the entire world runs on OSS, everyone pays to maintain it), larger marginal fee on companies whose products directly incorporate OSS. Fees flow into a scoring-based royalty pool: your project's share is proportional to how much commercial revenue depends on it, revenue-weighted so a hedge fund running its entire risk engine on a niche numerical library counts for more than fifty startups using the same package for weekend side projects. Maintainers register and claim their allocation like music royalties, no government agency decides who gets hired, just checks cut proportional to actual commercial stakes.

The core insight: you can't solve a collective action problem with voluntary action. You solve it by making the externality visible in the price.

AI learned to code by reading human code examples. Where will the training examples come from if AI codes directly to a human-unreadable language?

So, companies that violate this act are... debased?