The alien is so remotely unlike us that it's a little hard to believe it would have a thought system we could understand and communicate with.
I thought exactly the opposite. I think Rocky is far too "human". I didn't mind it, though, because a lot of the humor would be lost if Rocky was properly alien.
Anything that wasn't action, drama, or comedy was largely dropped and almost all of the science was quick summary explanations.
I think that's necessary. Providing explanations of depth comparable to the book would require a 10-hour movie. Squeezing the story down to feature length requires cutting a lot of exposition. In many books there's a lot of description that can be replaced with visuals, but it's pretty hard to do that with a lot of the science.
So far I don't see anything termendous besides money wasted.
I'm sure you'd have said the same about Y2K. It's a good thing that some people have more foresight.
it is LGPL2 or later. So LGPL3 applies. So the anti tivoization clause applies.
That's the opposite of how that works. It's LGPL 2 or later. That means you can follow the terms of redistribution from either license. Either. Or.
Sure. But it won't be your usual Linux distro.
It will do the same jobs. Most of the software on which we depend predates the GPL3 and/or uses an even more permissive license without an anti-tivoization clause.
The most fortunate part of Bell Labs' situation, however, was that in being attached to a monopoly it could partake in long-term thinking... Without competition nipping at its heels, Bell Labs engineers had the luxury of working out difficult ideas over decades.
Was it the monopoly that made the difference? Or was it simply management smart enough to not only not kill the goose, but also to feed it? They had wins, they got more funding, they had more wins, repeat until they no longer got more funding and stopped getting wins. What's probably more important than why they succeeded is what happened at the end.
Installer level disabling of the installation of systemd, please.
If you're a Debian derivative user, it's called Devuan.
* Note: Removing systemd from a systemd-based system is madness. There's a reason Devuan exists, and it is that simply changing the init system on Debian results in a lot of breakage, which best illustrates the biggest problem with systemd.
systemd is an integral part of many Linux systems. Adding the birth-date to it is the issue here. It's not the right place.
Yes, that is literally the entire ethos behind systemd.
It's crazy to expect a distro maintainer in a sane country to need to yank it out of there manually
Yes, that is literally the entire situation with systemd.
This change literally could not be more on brand for systemd.
What were you thinking making changes like that without firstly checking with the entire community?
That's systemd in a nutshell. Only people like that would willingly work on a project like that.
A Linux distro (even preinstalled) cannot be closed source and/or unmodifiable by the end user, the GPL3 made sure of that.
The Linux kernel is GPL2 and glibc is LGPL, and you can construct a complete userland without any GPL3 components. Also, you seem to be under some weird misapprehension that the federal government will follow the law, which it has never done across the board.
Slavery and many other such things were once legal.
Amendment XIII
Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
Section 2: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation".
Emphasis mine.
The hate really should be directed at the politicians who pushed for these age gate laws
Collaborators can get it.
For the true paranoid, if you need to sandbox, you're doing it wrong.
Everyone is doing it wrong, that's why we need to sandbox.
Even if you were perfect, you wouldn't have time to do everything yourself, so you would still want sandboxing to protect you from the efforts of others.
One issue with the overall architecture (which is just statistical prediction) is that it can't really provide useful insights on why it did what it did.
I think you're describing the models from a year ago. Most of the improvements in capability since then (and the improvements have been really large) are directly due to changes that have the AI model talk to itself to better reason out its response before providing it, and one of the results of that is that most of the time they absolutely can explain why they did what they did. There are exceptions, but they are the exception, not the rule.
It's interesting to compare this with humans. Humans generally can give you an explanation for why they did what they did, but research has demonstrated pretty conclusively that a large majority of the time those explanations are made up after the fact, they're actually post-hoc justifications for decisions that were made in some subconscious process. Researchers have demonstrated that people are just as good at coming up with explanations for decisions they didn't make as for decisions they did! The bottom line is that people can't really provide useful insights on why they did what they did, they're just really good at inventing post-hoc rationales.
If you can't code worth a damn, then of course the AI is going to find a lot of "bugs"...
If you're asserting that Greg Kroah-Hartman can't code worth a damn, you might want to find out who he is and think again.
And the law of large numbers. Statistically, there will but patch clusters, the same way there are clusters of every other random-ish event. The fact that one happens to occur right after Microsoft promises a commitment to predictable patch schedules means not just nothing the but opposite. Any commitment to doing better means that they recognize they haven't been doing well enough, and obviously it's not possible to do significantly better immediately; changing processes takes time, and observing the effects of those changes takes even longer.
So, no, this cluster of patches doesn't tell us anything in particular beyond what we already knew: That emergency patches are relatively common.
Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!
