Yeah I very much liked to read it as well. Goes to show that some engineers deeply care about the neatness and maintainability of our beloved kernel.

yeah, I was (jokingly) thinking to myself,
Ok, shield one side of the exposure plate.
Attach the exposed side to the astronaut.
Take a spacewalk.
Develop plate.

Tada! Instant xrays.

Earlier in his career he had a law firm with Michael Tang

Last mile wires are likely running VDSL, not POTS or ISDN. Phone service runs through a modem which the user plugs into their house wiring to give the illusion of POTS, but outside the house it is just VoIP

Not contesting your point in any way, but 128MB 72-pin SIMMs exist. Not sure how common it was back in the day, though, and support on the motherboard side is questionable. I know it exists because I had (and still have) one in my Mac Performa 630 (68040).

Let me be the first to complain about the improper use of the DEC logo. Again.
What the heck does DEC have anything to do with this story?

Hmm... re-read the post. Guess I read too much into your use of the specific number 30%. Perhaps there's something in the article, but there's nothing in the summary implying a "30% failure rate" that you stated. If you were just stating that as one possible hypothetical number, (or there's more information in the article) then sure, that makes sense.

It sounded to me like:
"there were 30 crates and 20 oranges in the shipment".
"Perhaps 30 percent of the crates were faulty because..." which is non-sequitur.
That's all.

So I don't play that type of game. Has anyone here played those, and had the gambling feeling over these loot boxes? The summary is rather damning, but I'd like the opinion of an adult gamer.

Thanks for the chuckle. The 6-digit IDs check out. But wasn't the line "Pace picante sauce is made in San Antonio by the folks who know what picante sauce is supposed to taste like." Where does El Paso come in? (maybe that's what's actually on the jar? I don't know.) I am also disturbed by that fact that I remember that line in its entirety. I haven't watched significant broadcast TV/commercials in over a decate.

I am not deeply versed in the topic, but doesn't all that just mean that "schools that get to pick and choose the best behaving students perform better than schools that are required to accept all types of students"? If all of the "best" [not necessarily in terms of grades, but in terms of not having behavioral/psychological/physical/economic problems that hinder their (and their peers') learning] students were siphoned off to private schools, I would expect exactly those results. The public schools will be left with the worst cases (the ones that 'cost' 2x, 3x, 10x more to educate) with correspondingly worse funding. I don't know if it's the best choice as a society to handicap the most disadvantaged people even further. I'm not OK with "let them rot in the streets". Society will pay the price sooner or later.

The folks who can afford private schools are welcome to it, but we shouldn't cripple our ability to take care of everyone else to help them. The first step to making vouchers fairer would be to tie the amount to how much it would cost to educate THAT student. "Average" cost per kid in the district - $200. Affluent kid with plenty of resources, tutors, and supportive parents - $50 voucher. A single-parent household needing help with books, food, and extra instruction time - $500 voucher. (numbers pulled out of the air). Of course, I have no idea how to make that workable.

You mention "70 percent", but the numbers can't be related that way from that statement. It does NOT say "70 of the wombs successfully produced babies, and 30 of the wombs had complications."
There's no way to derive a percent number from "number of operations" and "number of babies", so perhaps avoid trying to draw any conclusions in that direction until other/more numbers are available.

1) one womb can have multiple pregnancies.
2) Each pregnancy may or may not result in a healthy baby.
    2a) because of the issues with the transplanted womb
    2b) because of issues unrelated to the transplanted womb (e.g. genetics of the mother/father, environmental conditions, etc.)
3) as stated, some wombs may never experience a pregnancy
    3a) because there is something wrong with the transplant and it's incapable of doing so
    3b) the owner of the womb hasn't had an opportunity to (for whatever reason)

Because of that, it could be that only a handful of the 100 wombs are fully functional (and they are pumping out tons of babies) or nearly all of them are fully functional (but haven't gotten around to be used yet.) Or, or it's a mixed bag where the good transplants can carry 100% of pregnancies to term, while some of the bad transplant only can carry 10% of pregnancies to term, and everything in between.

tl;dr #babies =/= #good wombs.

     

Imagine being highly educated in a field that could help people, (neuroscientists, psychologists) but choosing to sell your soul to these parasitic companies. Back when I was looking for a job change, I avoided those types of outfits, and was glad I was able to find something else. How do they live with themselves?

Well, it's not just the private sector filling a need that is the problem. It's the use of public money (vouchers) without accountability (per step (b) above). I figure they (founders) would be smart enough to see the problem with that. If they weren't taking public money, they can probably do whatever the heck they want, but as soon as they do, they should be accountable to the taxpayers. There is probably large overlap between folks who don't want SNAP beneficiaries buying sodas and folks who bristle at auditing/regulation of schools taking vouchers.

Sigh. This math is not hard.
  Made up numbers to illustrate the possible math.
population: 1,000,000
#with cancer: 1,000
#with cancer who also has alz: 20
#with alz in general population: 2220

% of entire population with alz: 2240/1000000 = 2.24%
% of cancer patients with alz: 20/1000 = 2.00%
=>Cancer patients have 2/2.24 = 0.89, 100-89 = 11% fewer incidence of alz than the general population.
% of population with both: 20/1000000 = 0.02% => I would call this rare.

>How about enforcing the existing laws?
Yeah, about that. What the current administration is doing is just about the worst, most inefficient, most disruptive way to do that. If they were ACTUALLY interested in enforcing the laws, they would be going after the illegal EMPLOYERs. Fine the hell out of them and make examples. There should be headlines every week of Company XYZ getting raided, the CEO being handcuffed and perpwalked. The jobs will dry up and there will no longer be any incentives for the illegal workers to come in. The fact that many of those rural legislators who are loudest about immigration are themselves employers of undocumented workers (and Trump himself, too!), and there have been no public arrest/fining of illegal employers is a pretty sure sign that they're not interested in actually solving the "problem", but are just going through the motions to get suckers to go along with their agenda. If you are serious about enforcement, you should be calling for the administrations to go after those illegal employers. Those MAGA legislators should be writing up tougher regulations on illegal hiring and auditing frameworks. Are they doing any of that? What happened to government efficiency that they were harping about?

>previous administration refused to do
I keep seeing this from the same suckers that fall for the prior point, but they never present the evidence. What I've read showed that enforcement/deportations were still happening under Biden. They didn't make a show of the cruelty and violation of due process, though, so perhaps it wasn't nearly as visible. Proper enforcement requires resources, and like any large organization, the government has to evaluate the cost/benefit and allocate those resources appropriately. Given that undocumented workers overall are a net positive for the U.S. economy/treasury, spending huge amounts of money to stop it has to have some other upside. Based on reality/actual data, I'd rather government prioritize other things than brutal crackdowns that harm citizens and legal residents. Don't bring up crime -- outside the senile mind of Trump and his minions, immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than the native population. Hence, statistically, more immigrants lead to lower crime rate.

Lots of MAGAs seem to have issues with asylum seekers. Faux news whining aside, asylum is a LEGAL process. Asylum seekers are by definition NOT illegal. If they don't like it, the administration can properly fund the process to get through all the backlog and vet the applicants. If they don't like the fact that there are asylum seekers at all, they have control of congress. Pass the laws necessary to extricate the US from various treaties that obligate us to accept asylum. They're not doing that, though, because that would remove another talking point if there were no more asylum seekers to demonize and beat up. Instead, they are nabbing people at the appointments and court hearings while at the same time saying that they should have done it the "right way".