As I recall, it was about killing false gods. ;)

I came up with the following hypotheses:

• * Prevents websites from blocking Copilot.
• * Enables MS to claim they are not taking advertising revenue from websites (which isn't really true but whatever).
• * They could deploy a small neural network via WASM to only return the desired text from a website after rendering the complete site to an image.
• * To bossware, it appears as if you are being productive.

If it's none of these then I'm also at a loss.

You would think companies would learn to make electronics that are more modular but they can't seem to help themselves and keep over-optimizing for cost. Yes, this does improve mechanical reliability but PC/104 connectors are so reliable that it's used for satellites.

Ha! I remember that. If I recall correctly, they left on some (kernel?) debugging and it basically turned the computer into an eMMC flash memory wear tester, another simple but expensive mistake.

OK, that explains it a bit more because I know it's easier/cheaper to make a single platform than make two. However, the summary makes it seem like this is a total redesign (with a new software stack) rather than merely fixing what was broken. New hardware is good, entirely new bugs is less good.

This is my fault, I misread "replace the central computer of every 2025 EX90 with the new one from the 2026 EX90" as "replace the central computer of every 2025 EX90 with the new one in the 2026 EX90" which implies they simply moved on.

I've grown far too accustomed to seeing hardware manufacturers abandoning products the moment they've sold them and it's good to see Volvo actually making it right. However, I hope Volvo provided the option to disable anything that wasn't part of the original purchase as it may be undesirable/buggy.

Well, as a computer scientist, I tell you plainly that there is nothing to forgive because you are technically correct, the best kind of correct. I will take note of this to avoid the same error in the future.

How the hell is replacing the computer going to do anything to fix anything at all?

I see it as simply dropping 100% of software support and then moving onto the next model. This is exactly the kind of shitty corporate behavior that made me avoid getting an over-engineered and under-tested computer car.

How long until a publisher starts allowing AI submissions and then this marketplace gets flooded? :)

For just $2/month you can use Private Internet Access (PIA) as a VPN and not have to worry about nastygrams from your ISP. It's use OpenVPN or WireGuard and has even has an open source client. https://www.privateinternetacc...

Liquid cooling has been around forever but what matters a lot is how often it fails and how. If this was a silver bullet then MS wouldn't be spilling the beans but rather, promoting that the benefits of their secret technology and that you should invest in them. There is no benefit to them sharing this information which leads me to believe it's another pipe dream.

In the future, I think that today's AI companies will serve important examples of the perils of over-hyping technologies that are still going through heavy development. If not businessmen then (intelligent) investors will absolutely learn about the dangers of over-hyped and underdeveloped technology.

That said, it's absolute gold mine for people looking to churn out huge amount of puppets and astroturfing on social media.
I suspect it will or even already has been used to simplify complex manipulations to make VFX which will lower the cost/skill needed for movie post-production.

It certainly sounds like they lowered the standards if they are now allowing software with entirely undefined behavior to be used.

It does orbit Earth on occasion before returning to orbit the Sun. TFS isn't very clear about that fact.

Per the actual discussion identifying the object, it is a quasi-satellite. I think the moon related naming comes from the general public thinking of satellites as being man-made objects in Earth's orbit. However, plenty of publications have referred to such objects as being quasi-moons, including writers for The Planetary Society.

https://www.planetary.org/arti...

Like I said, you have to go out of your way to screw up. I never claimed it was perfect, only that you have to do something particularly dumb to break it. There is always going to be idiots in the ER because they used a tool the wrong way.

Safer, yes. Perfectly safe, no. When you build a fool-proof system then someone will build a better fool.

I did. I even explained why it wasn't chosen. It's no panacea and as someone else pointed out, safe subsets of C++ exist.

Qt's memory management is entirely based on using shared pointers. Honestly, it's kinda hard to screw up with Qt, like you have to go out of your way to screw up. i mean, other than failing to specify a parent object, how are you having memory issues in Qt?