Unless there is a big increase in funding across the board, how do you expect "most OSS projects" will pay for the bottomless bucket of tokens necessary to have "AI" handle project management, bug reports, patch review, etc etc?

Deepseek 4.1 Flash, GLM 5.3 Flash, Qwen 3.8 Flash, Muse Ember, Claude 5.5 Haiku, GPT 5.6 Luna, MiMo V2.6 Flash (or even MiMo V2.6 Pro), etc.

You don't need to use, say, Fable or Astra to handle bug reports :P

... but if you don't incorporate AI into your project manage system, you're going to get swamped by it all. AI needs to also handle the first-tier of bug reports, patch submissions, and feature requests - reviewing them, evaluating them within the project goals, filtering out or improving submissions with issues, seeking and taking into account user feedback on controversial issues, etc. The limited human hours that most OSS projects have need to be insulated from the deluge, leaving them to focus on the high-level decisions, with content that they receive to consider being pre-reviewed and pre-considered for suitability to the project.

Otherwise, I don't see how most OSS projects can deal with this in the age of AI. Unless there's going to be some big increase in funding from somewhere?

I was not making a judgement about whether the current system in the US is good (it's not).

However, there are *always* going to be limits to how much healthcare you get from a shared pool. If you're 6 feet tall but feel that you ought to be 6'-2", there is no conceivable healthcare system anywhere that is going to pay you to get bone extension surgery. Likewise, no insurance plan is going to pay to get you a Michael Jackson-style nose. However, you could have those things done on your own dime. So what I said is 100% accurate.

"But those aren't medically necessary!". Well, that's a judgement that's always going to be made somewhere. People disagree on what is necessary enough to draw resources from the shared pool, so it becomes a political process. But no matter what, somebody making decisions on coverage is not going away.

All insurance, public or private, rations healthcare. The only way that healthcare won't ever be rationed is if you pay for it yourself, which you're always entitled to do.

It turns out that the hardest part of this project wasn't designing the model or training it. Instead, it was hunting down the peripheral equipment to transcribe it onto paper tape so that it could be loaded onto the FAA's Sperry Rand mainframe running in a basement somewhere in Maryland.

Though realistically, because 240Pu (from waste) is worse in a fission bomb than 239Pu - generally no more than ~20kT, and challenging to get more than a few kT - still enough to take out a city centre but not a metro area - you'll generally want a fusion weapon, which means deuterium and tritium supplies. And Ukraine doesn't run CANDUs, so you're not going to get tritium from the coolant. They'd need lithium targets / lithium in the coolant to breed tritium. Separation of tritium and deuterium are a mix of chemical, electrochemical, and/or physical separation, but are much easier than uranium isotopic separation (deuterium is double the mass of protium, and tritum triple the mass, so the chemical / electrochemical behavior is actually notably different in a lot of situations, unlike uranium).

For a fusion bomb they'd also want a depleted uranium tamper, but Ukraine probably has ample access to that, whether from weapons, armour, old Soviet stocks, etc. Even spent nuclear fuel is mostly 238U, if they don't mind the tamper being highly radioactive.

My personal best guess would be that Ukraine's unstated policy is to have "sprint capacity", like Japan and South Korea do. That is, to not make weapons or anything that would get them flagged as having a weapons programme, but to have everything needed that, if the word "Go" was given, that they could nuclearize very quickly.

Unlike your typical rogue state that seeks to get nuclear weapons, Ukraine has no need for mass centrifuge facilities or anything like that. They already have plutonium en masse, as they're a major nuclear power generation state with extensive waste supplies. Plutonium extraction via PUREX is merely metallurgy (it's not a simple metal to work with, but it doesn't require isotopic enrichment). You need nitric acid (bog standard, nobody will blink an eye), a reducing agent like ferrous sulfamate (not much of a red flag, it has tons of uses), and an organic solvent like tributyl phosphate (a little bit of a red flag, but it has other uses, and there are alternatives), and a bit of gallium (~1%) for alloying - not a problem. Ukraine could very readily have all of this on-hand, an underground lab ready to go, and a rolodex of people to staff it if the order is given. They'd need high explosives like PBXs or TATB, but nobody would blink an eye at Ukraine buying them. High speed switches for the detonators used to be a big red flag item, but today they increasingly overlap with power electronics for motors and power grids. You need neutron initiators, but there's a number of options for that. And running bomb physics simulations and doing small component tests is something they could easily have under the radar - if they don't outright have old Soviet design plans dusted off and ready to go.

The biggest red flag would be Ukraine inexplicably removing nuclear waste (for processing) and/or trying to defeat IAEA monitoring, so that would likely be not done unless nuclear tensions looked severe. Because if it looks like you're sprinting to a nuclear weapon, it increases the odds of a preemptive nuclear strike against you.

Dating people at work is generally OK as long as one doesn't report to the other directly or indirectly.

HR usually wants to know so that they can rearrange the corporate hierarchy to avoid such unseemly conflicts of interest. It's their business because it's unfair to everyone else under that dating boss if one of their colleagues is exchanging "special favors" with the boss.

Not all of the UPSes need to be doing their test at the same time, just some of them. Mine, for example, tests every large handful of days (somethig like every two weeks). It's sufficient that a fraction will be doing their testing synchronized to a reasonably accurate clock and thus will be creating a load that is in lock-step, and have a detectable result.

You've obviously never held a real job.

Every company that I've ever worked for over the decades made this kind of policy 100% clear to new hires, and some of them repeated it at least annually (along with other boring annual training on things like not sending sensitive tech to places like China).

When I was working for a startup in the early 2000s, we had our own servers. We were growing, so were adding servers at a pretty good clip. After one particular expansion, all of a sudden, Saturday night at 3 am, we blew breaker. No one had a good explanation, but the sysadmins were not happy about needing to go to the office in the middle of the night to fix things up.

A week later, the same thing happened. I suggested that it was the RAID check kickoff that might be doing it. And, indeed, it was. A couple of dozen servers all seeking their drives at once was too much for the circuits they were on. Staggering the startup time fixed it.

Coherence can be good, like when you're rowing crew, or bad, like when you have dozens of drives all drawing max power. Or, from the summary, gazoober UPS systems doing a battery check.

But that's a problem which only appeared when UPS systems and large battery storage grew beyond a certain threshold. For a long time, it was fine to have the system checking the battery every minute, because not many battery systems were deployed to begin with and even less were constantly online and synchronized via NTP. And at some point in time, a single battery was added which was the last straw to break the camel's back.

Map of agricultural production changes in the nuclear winter following a minor nuclear exchange, posted for no particular reason.

(For a full-scale exchange...)

Also, for no particular reason, a map of Russia's population distribution, alongside a reminder of Russia's nuclear missile failure rate, particularly booster failures. And that nuclear warheads have been commonly lost disturbingly often even during peacetime, with at least seven weapons from four incidents lost in flight landing in a way that left them fully intact and easily reparable, just from the US alone. And that Ukraine is rich in nuclear engineers, including still some retirees who worked in the Soviet nuclear weapons programme.

There's also this myth that "if you just use a nuclear weapon, you automatically win the war". Nuclear weapons are immensely effective terror weapons, but their effectiveness on the front is a lot weaker than most people think. People on frontlines tend to be in trenches, bunkers, basements, armoured vehicles, etc, and can be surprisingly close to a tactical nuclear blast while still surviving. They're effective against hard points but struggle against a broad, diffuse front (aka, today's front, which is a sparsely populated, deep, amorphous zone, thanks to drones). Amortizing Russia's estimated budget for tactical nuclear weapons comes up with ~$15-25M per weapon (not counting the delivery system), so they're hardly a dime a dozen either.

IF, via terror bombing or threats of terror bombing, you can convince your enemy to surrender, then congratulations, you have won (enjoy your nuclear waste heap and restive population who wants nothing more than to kill you). If they do not, however, their only goal remaining will be to focus 100% on using their extensive nuclear waste supplies rich in plutonium, their extensive long-range strike weapon supplies, and their extensive metallurgical experience, to render your major cities to ash in the same way that you did theirs.

(I also just assume herein that Ukraine doesn't actually have a secret nuclear weapons programme already, which is certainly an assumption).

I look forward to the unplanned broadcast of Swan Lake.

Every single time I've ever tried to find a solution to a problem on the Apple forums over the past few decades, there's never been a real solution there. It's a lot of other people with the same problem and people posting generic solutions that don't work or aren't relevant, or just people regurgitating Apple documentation.