I'll bet. His case has less than no chance in court.

It's good. Until it isn't.

I'm a computer scientist with three decades of expertise in computer networking. There's this one AI-based job board that keeps trying to match me with delivery driver jobs.

Designing a structure with withstand a major act of war basically means digging it far enough underground that nothing can reach it. It was a stupid rule.

You have to check when they're available anyway. Even where people actually work "customary business hours," they take time off for things like doctors' appointments and childrens' special events.

I vote for option E: Everybody switches to UTC.

Local noon on the U.S. pacific coast will be 20:00 instead of 12:00 and the office day will start at 17:00 instead of 9:00 am. But in trade, I never have to do any mental gymnastics converting for someone else's time again.

Prohibition was repealed.

I don't disagree. Personally I think the Federal government got too powerful after the civil war & we really don't even have the same type of government that the founders envisioned.

I'd be somewhat in favor of an Article 5 convention so long as any changes had to be subject to a vote like the President is elected. The Electoral Collage system is absolutely brilliant & gives the individual vote maximum power because a handful of voters can change the outcome of an entire election. If people really want something they need to get out and vote. If you stay home you can't complain if the other side doesn't.

Anyway, good luck to us all.

Well you're not wrong. Most people forget the 9th & 10th amendments and what they actually say.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        - Basically saying, "just because we listed a few specific Rights here, that doesn't mean those are the only ones The People have."

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
        - The Federal Government is not permitted to just assume new powers because we didn't specifically restrict it here. If it's not specifically listed in this document the government cannot do it.

How far afield of these rules has the Federal strayed? How much longer will The People tolerate it?

Wait, what?

The Constitution is a restriction on the powers of the Federal Government, not on Anthropic. The Federal Government does have the ability to "regulate commerce" under what is called the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

I'm not sure what particular law(s) c/would apply here - if any - however I'm certain various courts might have to render a judgement.

Who says I didn't have the money to do so? I didn't go into that at all. But since you're curious I'll explain: Yes I had the money to buy one outright, but an interest-free loan was available and I took advantage of it. Had I purchased it outright, then had an expense outside of that like a car-repair, THAT would have had to come out of my interest-charging credit card and ... while I didn't actually check on it, I'm pretty sure Apple/Goldman would not have given me a similar payment plan for the car repair.

I went to an Apple Store purchase an iPad with an Apple Card last year, I wanted to take advantage of paying it off within a year no interest. At the moment of checkout Goldman declined me and wouldn't tell me why. After two days and several scattered phone calls they claimed that it was unusual activity on my account. I pointed out to them that I had successfully purchased and paid off 3 other items on the same payment plan, and that their assertion that my activity was unusual was absurd.

I'll spare you the blow by blow because I know it's boring, but ultimately Goldman Sachs held to their position that they did the right thing, and Apple had to come to the rescue. They talked to each other a bit and I finally got my device on the payment plan I wanted.

I'm greatly looking forward to Goldman getting out of the picture. They really did try to spin it to me like the inconvenience they caused me was somehow something I should be happy about. "This happens because we're diligent about catching fraud!" "But, you didn't."

For future reference, Slashdot is an international site, so when you post about something specific to a single country, something about the post should give the reader some idea which country.

Correct, nothing worse. But Rust has to be *better* than C at something for it to be a better choice, because without the memory safety guarantees, C is faster. C is also much better suited to tasks which impose structural order on byte buffers without moving data. Which happens a lot at the system programming level.

If you can write it with an efficient run time in Rust without using the "unsafe" keyword and without relying on a library that uses the "unsafe" keyword then you've generally identified a use case where Rust is a better choice than C. If you need the "unsafe" keyword or have to write convoluted code to work around its absence, C is likely still a better choice. The kernel has both use cases.

First off, that's not even an article about Internet infrastructure, it's an article about open source software.

Second off, when you use open source software, you own the copies you're using. That's the whole point. If it breaks and the original author isn't around, you hire someone to fix it or replace it with different software. That's how it works. And all of the software licenses deemed open source are structured to make it continue to work that way, with or without the original authors.