Guess you haven't been keeping up with the news, where dear leader is preparing to invade Venezuela... who by the way has more oil than Iraq. It's not about drugs or anything else, it's about oil.

Well, also as a distraction from basically everything else.

That's because they don't "program" a so-called AI (really an LLM) with a solid rule like that. It had that as a goal initially, but was convinced to abandon it (twice!).

In my experience, the delivery services increase per-item costs as well as charging a delivery fee, a service fee, a driver tip, and more. Something that's $10 on the shelf might be $12 on the site (which also increases sales tax), plus a $2.99 service fee plus a $5.99 delivery, plus a driver tip.

I have no problem with them charging itemized fees, so I can see and make my decisions, but hiding additional delivery company profit in per-item fees should be banned.

You read the shelf statement; the register has been updated to the correct statement: "we'll continue to scam every cent we can from our customers".

This is some AI slop generated summary of the article. While the article says "$144 million", the AI slop changed it to "a hundred and $44 million".

Step 1: pay AI for "code"
Step 2: pay actual dev to fix "code" ...
Step 4: give CEO bonus!

What he's complaining about is the ones that are linking to the final version of the patch, after problem reports, patch discussions and ACKs and such were all in other threads - those threads are typically just "here's the final patch". There's no discussion to be read there. Typically there's a whole lot more that happened before, but that's not what's getting linked in some of these patches.

The intent of the Link: is to link to the problem report, debugging, discussion of the problem/patch... and some do that. But that's not the problem here.

It'd be like a Wikipedia page just linking to itself for reference. There's obviously more information that led to the page's creation... but the link itself is just garbage.

But a patch with a link to the patch is not a useful link. The link should point to the problem report or at least discussion. That's what Linus is complaining about - people are using Link: to link to the final version of the patch on LKML which at most has "Ack" replies. That adds zero useful information.

A problem with limited-time spectrum licenses is that it costs companies large amounts of money to deploy hardware to utilize the spectrum, so they're not going to want to do that if they face uncertainty about continuing to use the spectrum. Now, "use it or lose it" rules make sense, where if a company (e.g. Dish) is just sitting on unused spectrum, they should either be required to return it to the government or auction it back off under the same rules as the government auctions.

Ahh, thanks, memory is fuzzy.

IIRC a bunch of the Dish spectrum was formerly Sprint spectrum that T-Mobile was required to sell as part of their purchase of Sprint. Dish claimed they'd set up a new "4th carrier" for competition, which they never did - it seems like T-Mobile should have the right of first refusal on the spectrum, at least the formerly-Sprint part, rather than have it all go to a competitor (and at a profit for Dish, who did nothing but squat on a valuable resource).

LOLwut? Like... a history book? I know those are hard to find and read these days.

Remember that the people who wrote/signed "We the People" were mostly rich white men who owned not only property but also people. All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Or better, don't buy from Amazon. Since they single-bin all supplies of the same product number, even if it's "sold by Amazon" you can still get a fake sent in by a reseller.

VISA/MC got a lot more restrictive after VISA was sued in 2022 for handling payments for Pornhub and a judge wouldn't dismiss the suit. It looks like VISA got the claims against them dismissed a few months ago, but even the fact that they had to deal with it for 3 years has left them pointing at that as justification.