Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)

Yes, it is definitely ICMP.

https://github.com/tianocore/e...

Yep. Back in the early days of Slashdot, when helium usage would come up, I'd grumble about how wasteful the medical industry was with helium.

It still uses a lot, but it's nowhere near as wasteful as it was before.

Yes, like the Nile Delta, water flowed in from wet regions further away to the desert and near-desert lowlands, and humans began using it for agriculture. Around the Tulare Basin, there's dozens of inches per year in the mountains due to orographic uplift, but only half a dozen in the lowlands. The problem is that farmers first consumed the water from the mountain-fed local rivers and are now consuming water shipped in from as far away as the Oregon border and drawing down groundwater much faster than it's being replenished. At the same time, the mountain rivers are becoming less reliable as climate change leads to snowpack melting earlier. As it stands today, it is not sustainable. More water is being used than is long-term available.

Indeed, I have no clue what you think you were trying to prove with this link:

The conversion of this water system to a lake-and-slough wetland to agriculture began in the mid-1800s when European settlers began to build canals and diversion structures to irrigate their crops. This early irrigation infrastructure upstream from Tulare Lake slowly cut off the lake from its source waters, shrinking the lake's footprint. By 1899 - less than 50 years after irrigation was initiated - Tulare Lake went dry for the first time in history.

They were overdrawing the rivers *even before the 20th century*.

It does indeed. See the GitHub link.

You're folding it wrong.

Just had to be said.

My apologies for the pedantic reply, but I'm just getting exhausted by the seemingly endless need people have to inject urgency into headlines. "On Planet Earth" is not necessary. At all. You can drop those words and the sentence means exactly the same thing.

What would be useful in the summary is some information on how the attack might happen.

For the record, during the window of a PXE-boot, a malicious unicast ICMP error message can be picked up by the driver and cause a buffer overrun. The window is closed when boot is complete.

https://github.com/tianocore/e...

FYI, this included some items I was grammatically templating that used triangle brackets because I forgot slashdot doesn't sanitize inputs, but permits raw html.

"How do I know that (insert processor) won't have (insert condition) in the future?" You don't.

There's nothing at the end of that line of reasoning. You can quite easily apply this to any processor ever in existence, past or future. "How do I know that won't have in the future?" You don't. And even if you knew on day one that an undocumented register existed in a chip, it tells you exactly nothing about future exploitability, and advises you not at all on whether or not to purchase it. I'm sure there are lots of undocumented "features" on chips from the past.

Well said. This is a very succinct way of describing the secondary effects for everyone around someone using AI to feel "more productive". Sending people massive emails you didn't even bother to read, creating huge design documents that are just dozens of meaningless pages and offer nothing of tangible value, or asking fellow developers to reviews 50,000 line code changes you didn't write (or read), etc.

I use AI at work for development and I know that the frontier models in a harness like Claude Code are more capable than many AI critics claim but I also see the results they create in a skeptical light. For a prediction chatbot they are surprisingly good at writing software, but also surprisingly bad compared to a decently skilled human. They can generate massive amounts of design documents and code in a very short time, and easily overwhelm humans trying to read, review, verify, and test the changes. The same thing is happening in other kinds work as well.

Drug use is an apt metaphor. The Dr Feelgood of this decade.

It's under control. I've been retired for two and a half years and my portfolio is flat, even after drawing my salary from it the whole time. Cautious blend.

But yeah. When I transferred my pension out it was a calculated risk. If I had left it another year it would be locked in permanently, and the future is so uncertain that I was unwilling to leave it there.

Your point being...?

https://www.csoonline.com/arti...

My wealth consists of very little in the way of cash equivalents. It's in a diversified collection of products including stocks, bonds, etc.. While I think I'm decently hedged there is a distinct possibility that there exists risk in the secondary layers, the nature of which I am unaware.

I'm 56. I would like to know where I stand. Let's see the massive correction.

Unlike many others, though, my wealth has no components fully in the hands of funds. No pension fund, for instance. I pulled that all out at commuted value. So mine won't suddenly evaporate from under me. Those in that situation may be less eager for the rightsizing.