Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

A balloon is not static, it moves with the atmospheric system it is in. Ergo, it tells you how that system evolves. A drone cannot do this.

A drone can stay put, relative to the ground, telling you how a location's atmosphere evolves. A balloon cannot do this.

These are solving completely different types of problem.

You could, of course, construct a hybrid, as balloons are traditionally single-shot. If a balloon carries the measurement gear and a drone capable of carrying that same gear PLUS a deflated balloon, then you can have something that operates as a balloon until it reaches some pre-set location, whereupon the balloon's gas is released and the drone flies the ensemble to a collection point.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's a reasonable take on reality. There are two types of situations: Situations where you want to learn about X and situations where you need to know the answer to some very specific, but narrow question about X. For the second question, giant, ad-laden websites where the answer is buried in a pile of unrelated information are basically a disservice. You're paying for the information not just by watching their ads, but by wading through all the other crap.

In an ideal universe, there would be some sort of micropayment system, where websites earned money just from people visiting, and it came out of a fund paid into by ISPs, and the amount paid would be proportional to how many sites the Internet users of the world hit that day, and it would have some way of avoiding payment to link farms and other similar garbage content. And this would be an international system, and it would be designed in a way that somehow perfectly preserved privacy while maintaining auditability. I have no idea what that would look like, of course.

In the absence of such a scheme, though, there will always be a tug of war for power between content creators and browser/search companies, because the latter are trying to do what is best for the user in the short term, and the former are trying to get paid to protect what is best for the user in the long term. And I'm really not sure how to solve that problematic power dynamic, except by suggesting that perhaps that tug of war might actually be the solution, because it means neither side has too much power and control.

Apparently not, or at least the web version refused when I asked.

It obviously gives us guarantees in terms of what the source will do and what the compiled code should need.

These do not provide memory safety, so memory bugs would not be solved by these. They will find unexpected behavioural issues, though.

The precondition and postcondition statements are not cunningly-disguised assert statements because they're not asserted at runtime. They're enforced at static check and/or compile time.

The policy hints mean that if the kernel is doing something you're not expecting, you find this when testing the code. Equally, though, it means that users cannot cause the software to venture into realms unknown through many of the usual attack vectors because those will require permissions that aren't there.

Well, it falls to a jurisdiction in which there is a high chance of selective regulatory oversight/enforcement, given the conflict of interest with Trump's family vested interest in prediction markets.

I'm curious about what model you got. While I would avoid all their consumer-oriented machines, I have regularly purchased refurbished "business-class" machines over the years and they've served me really well. There's a couple vendors I really like on ebay who seem to get a lot of cast-off inventory from business as they upgrade. I usually pick them up for $200-$300 and maybe add more memory or larger drives. I have a T480 and T580 for my own use and got my parents T590s. I also exclusively run Linux on them.

These are obviously out of warranty with Lenovo, but the ebay vendor has been great... I was unhappy with some marks on a screen and they effortlessly replaced the computer for me.

Linux is already a success.

Rust is not fun. I tried it, and I hated it. Maybe you like it if you like abuse, but man. I hated it. It was the least fun I had programming in anything since OCaml.

>One could infer that the State of California thinks its citizens are dumber than the average American, and thus can't be allowed to see triangular arrows lest they draw the wrong conclusion

Or the plastics recycling was always an industry greenwashing campaign, and the vast majority of people actually do believe that sorting their plastics into a recycling bin leads to less plastic being manufactured, and this is just a move to educate the people that plastic recycling is actually a sham.

instant protection in any commonwealth country. In fact the police would have brought him children and said "had fun with her".

Wait, uneducated people can't get high now? Things sure have changed since I was young. Back then, it was mostly the uneducated kids getting high. :-)

You know the restâ¦

I mostly do heavy multi-disciplinary engineering problems (these I also use for checking an AI, as they're typically not good at these sorts of problems), complex coding, OS analysis, stuff like that. However, sometimes I do throw the occasional odd-ball - I've used ChatGPT to propose a workable quantum mechanics that will cope with Doctor Who canon, for example, and to produce an outline for a story in which symphonic metal appears in 1964 that is compliant with current sociological and psychological models of behaviour.

Claude Opus 4.6 was coping surprisingly well with just about everything I threw at it (but ran out of credits fast), but Opus 5 is churning out incoherent babblings to the point I'm worried I may have accidentally summoned Cthulhu.

But Gemini, Grok, and DeepSeek got hopelessly confused on just about everything past a very low level of complexity. They can handle large problems, yes - Gemini has a huge context window - but complex interactions baffle them.

ChatGPT is able to identify issues correctly, but can only outline solutions, it's just not good at depth. 5.6 is a lot better, but still not good at deep answers. ChatGPT is also prone to agreeing for the sake of it, which makes me nervous about trustworthiness.