Slackware has never enabled CONFIG_SMB_SERVER in any kernel.

There's a long history of horrible treatment and outright abuse/massacres of the N.A.'s, which is ironic to me in in many ways because even Lewis & Clark's expedition left pretty convincing evidence that members of the expedition were doinking female N.A.'s on their trek left and right - mercury that was used to try to cure syphilis. But the experiences and the history of the N.A.'s is not a parallel to the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not even close. For one thing, the Jews returning to the land of Israel (which a small percentage of us never actually left over the past 2000 years) is not a case of foreign invaders/colonizers. It was the return of a mostly forcibly displaced people to its homeland, which wasn't anywhere near as populated as it is now. Our status as being native to the MENA/SWA region did not have an expiration date on it like your bottle of milk does.

False premise. I'm only aware of one side of the conflict celebrating the killing of minors. We didn't pass candy around on the streets when children in Gaza were victims. But the Palestinian side HAS done this. And I'm not even suggesting that all Palestinians agree to celebrate our murders, especially those of our minors, but enough of them do (it's in no way a minority that condone it). I can only suspect that those Palestinians find it ok to kill Jewish kids because they don't view us as fellow humans. (This article isn't specific to minors as victims, but it's a pretty recent example of the phenomenon, and the victims were all random passers-by.)

If Arabs put down their weapons, there would be peace. If Jews put down their weapons, there will be no Jews. We've seen that movie before, and our numbers still have not recovered.

As a reminder, the Israeli - Palestinian conflict really is a sideshow in the Middle East. The Arabs have a long history of infighting among themselves, especially that whole sunni v. shia thing, all about who was next in line after muHamad. And given the Abraham Accords, it's further demonstrating that the Palestinians just aren't that important to other Arabs. They were politically expedient in the past.

I agree with Lapid that a two-state solution would be the most viable. It's just a further screwing over of us because it further reduces the land we would have control over and access to our holy places (many of which are in what you'd likely call "the west bank" because much of that was yehudah - the heart of our homeland), but it's a bitter pill I'm willing to accept if it were to be a lasting peace, especially if we could have warm ties. And as a reminder, there's been numerous offers of exactly this to the Palestinians, and they were all rejected. Just a few of the more recent offers: ehud baraq's offer, ehud olmert's offer. They aren't going to get everything they want, nor are we. But after baraq's offer was flat out rejected, I recall another intifada being contrived. Jews aren't going anywhere, and Jews aren't "colonizers". Believe me or don't, I don't have time to go further into the weeds. For a different take, see Fred Maroun's blog postings on TimesofIsrael.com.

I should also note that we, as Israeli Jews, are extremely horrible at exterminating people, because not only has the Israeli Arab population increased significantly since 1948, but so has the Palestinian Arab population. Worst. genocide. ever.

Oh, silly me, I didn't realize that this whole /. post was about Native Americans. Please forgive my forgetfulness to write a dissertation for you about the plight of the Native Americans. And they're a remnant of what they used to be mostly due to a pandemic that wiped out something like 90% of the population of natives across the continent, AS WELL as the racism they faced and still face.

I did, however, notice that you feigned offense about the Native Americans in order to avoid addressing the question I made about the pertinent subject matter.

Goy-splain much, eh? I can infer from your response that you aren't Jewish. And yet you have the audacity to think that you can "learn" me about my own people? As a famous former statesman once said here in the USA, "everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts". You have lots and lots of opinions, but very very little fact to base them on. What you recited above isn't even remotely the tip of the iceberg, and much of it is ahistorical to boot. But then I can only guess that this is why you chose the nick you did. I find no benefit to continue to discuss any of this with a goy-splainer. If you seriously have any desire to improve your knowledge on this subject, I recommend starting off with reading Yair Rosenberg at The Atlantic. This is a good one to start off with, as he tackles your mistaken notion that we're just a bunch of random people with a common religion binding us: https://newsletters.theatlanti...

The problem is that so many people, even some Jews, don't understand even how everything connects. Judaism is the religious practice of the Jewish people. One can be Jewish without observing Judaism (see: Albert Einstein), since we are best described as an ethnoreligious group (a concept that long predates the modern pseudoscientific racial classifications). Zionism is, in its most basic form, the concept of supporting Jewish self-determination in our ancestral homeland. It in of itself does not call for the removal of other groups of people who may be living there, even if those other people are themselves the descendants of Arab colonizers. There are some that took this basic concept and ran with it pretty heavily, like the current politician Itamar Ben Gvir.

Does anybody, besides perhaps what remains of the Native American population, call into question modern day Americans' right to self-determination upon the land controlled by the United States of America? Not by any rational person, you say? If that's the case, then why does the modern state of Israel always have people questioning its right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, who are technically indigenous to that land?

It's one thing to be critical of policies of the state of Israel, and it's even reasonable if one holds other nations of the world to the same standards of criticism. But if one is critical of Zionism or anti-Zionist, what they're really saying is we have no right to self-determination in our native homeland. Hamas denies our right to even exist, and even Mahmoud Abbas denies our long connection to the land. There can be no official peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs until we are accepted as belonging to the region.

There is no uniform authoritative database with fine-grained-enough data that can tell you whether or not there are wires on the poles, wires underground, who owns them, what type they are, and whether or not there is capacity to provide you service at any given address. Take for example my situation: There is a DSLAM about 4000-5000 ft from me, which does put me in range for at least older DSL service. That copper does come to my house. BUT there is exactly ZERO capacity available in the DSLAM, and AT&T ain't going to do crap with the equipment in our "neighborhood" (a neighborhood of 1/2 acre to 350 acre sized lots) unless they were forced by a court of law to do so. I WAS lucky enough to obtain Starlink after living here and suffering tiny data transfer caps on cellular, but honestly, I'd prefer terrestrial fiber to that solution.

Problem is that you conflate a POTS line with telephone service. This isn't the 1970's anymore, and the PSTN isn't how you imagine it - even just the portions of the PSTN that have a wired layer1 connection.

CCS can go up to around 400kW. Well, actually I think it is 500kW now. Which is 1000VDC x 400A or 500A.

Most BEVs canâ(TM)t go that high. In fact, I think there are only one or two that can actually max out current 350kW chargers for any decent amount of time. Neither of Them T

-Matt

Yes, but nobody fast DC charges to 100%. The charge rate drops modestly past 60% and precipitously above 80%. So people only charge to 60-80% and no more. Usually 30-40 minutes max. And if your final destination is close and destination charging is available, only enough to get there. So for trips just beyond the vehicle range, the charging stop can be very short, like 10-15 minutes.

At home, or at a destination, people will charge to 100% overnight if they will be taking a long trip the next day, and otherwise only charge to 70% or 80%. Unless itâ(TM)s a model 3 with a LFP battery, in which case people charge to 100% overnight.

-Matt

-Matt

Yah. The connector standard has settled down, which is good. Chargers are typically only able to do AC or DC anyway, not both. CCS on the vehicle allows both J1772 (AC only) and also has the extra pins for high amperage DC.

L1 (120VAC) 11-16A (in vehicle charger)
L2 (240VAC) 24-80A (in vehicle charger)
L3 (was never implemented)
Fast DC charging, direct DC to battery, dynamically managed up to 1000VDC and 500A.

Limited by the lower of what the external unit can supply and the vehicle can accept.

Chademo is being steadily removed. The cable standard was too limited. So if you own an old leaf, you need to start carrying around an adapter.

-Matt

I apologize for the (TM) junk. I donâ(TM)t know why the iPad is doing that. It isnâ(TM)t in my edit box.

-Matt

Iâ(TM)m sure it is looked at. The bigger fast DC chargers have to be located near fairly hefty distribution lines (several thousand volts AC is preferred), in order to be able to situate a sufficient number of DC supplies at a location. A DC fast charger outputs 300VDC to 1000VDC based on the vehicleâ(TM)s battery pack requirements, and up to 500A. All dynamically controlled via continuous communication with the vehicle.

-Matt

The Mach-e has a particularly weird charging curve that falls of a cliff way too early. Make sure you get all software updates and stay on top of the news, itâ(TM)s something that Ford has slowly improved over time but I donâ(TM)t think they have completely fixed it yet.

-Matt

"In a Substack article, Didgets developer Andy Lawrence argues his system solves many of the problems associated with the antiquated file systems still in use today. "With Didgets, each record is only 64 bytes which means a table with 200 million records is less than 13GB total, which is much more manageable," writes Lawrence. Didgets also has "a small field in its metadata record that tells whether the file is a photo or a document or a video or some other type," helping to dramatically speed up searches."

Yah... no. This is the "if we make the records small enough we can cache the whole thing in ram" argument. It doesn't work in real life. UFS actually tried to do something similar to work-around its linear directory scan problem long ago. It fixed only a subset of use cases and blew up in only a few years as use cases exceeded its abilities.

The problem is that you have to make major assumptions as to both the size of the filesystem people might want to use AND the amount of ram in the system accessing that filesystem.

The instant you have insufficient ram, performance goes straight to hell. Put those 13GB on a hard drive with insufficient ram, and performance will drop to 400tps from all the seeking. It won't matter how linear that 13GB is on the drive... the instant the drive has to seek, its game-over.

This is why nobody does this in a serious filesystem design any more. There is absolutely no reason why a tiny little computer (or VM) with a piddling amount of ram, should not be able to mount a petabyte filesystem. Filesystems must be designed to handle enormous hardware flexibility because one just can't make any assumptions about the environment the filesystem will be used in.

This is why hierarchical filesystem layouts, AND hierarchical indexing methods (e.g. B-Tree/B+Tree, radix tree, hash table) work so well. They scale nicely and provide numerous clues to caching systems that allow the caches to operate optimally.

-Matt