Step 1: get rid of those god awful tabs and introduce a compact mode that's really compact.

It also depends on the safety certification level. If you're in navigation or fuel management systems (DAL-B certification) and such, the rules are very different from DAL-E certified things like the in-flight entertainment / connectivity systems.

Much more rigor is applied to DAL-A / -B / -C as you can imagine, because they are safety critical. And thus the price goes far higher, because active operation must be maintained.

Oh no, it's something you have to do every other decade rather than every third!!

You will look for any fucking excuse, won't you? By the way, if you're replacing the roof and it wasn't fucked when you put the panels on it (which any sane person would take care of before putting panels over it, but you're clearly not thinking this through), you may as well upgrade the panels too because there's been **20 years** of advancement.

Can you even see past the tip of your own nose?

As enshittified as YouTube has become, I'm tempted to think this might bring some needed competition since all the small competitors have totally failed to gain any traction. But it's Meta owned so it'll suck even worse.

You take the panels off? Oh no, you have to use an electric wrench to unbolt some stuff after pulling a disconnect lever on the inverter. Once every 30 years.

THE HORROR.

That's exactly the calculation. Use redundant storage in-flight, and make LRU swaps very quick on the ground. If you catch a failure in-flight, you have a tech with a replacement LRU waiting for the plane when it lands (for various values of "where" - obviously you don't have techs at every airport).

It's really not that different from anticipating disk failure in a server by having online redundancy, and a service callout to replace the part. Especially if you can quickly refurbish and recertify the LRU and put it right back into the replacement inventory.

Also, it's a set of tools, that is more-or-less standardized at this point. In some circles (such as avionics) it's actually a godsend because systemd system extensions (sysext) is an implementation that replaces brittle bullshit that had to be built and maintained by each manufacturer to meet ARINC standards. Now we don't have situation with multiple implementations of the same concept, and every avionics manufacturer owning their own implementation, tooling, and proprietary transfer tools. Now, you just slam out a properly annotated and cryptographically signed SquashFS with software BoM and attestation as a systemd sysext, and you have your ARINC 665 software part. After loaded to the aircraft, the "activation" is literally `systemd-sysext merge`

Many people have far too narrow of a focus to see all the problems these guys are solving, and far too narrow of thinking to realize that everything in systemd doesn't need to apply to everyone, everywhere, 100% of the time.

As we all know, software definitely scales on a linear track. Every time.

Yes, because being declarative about your dependencies is terrible. I'd much rather have the complexity of making sure that crons fire in order, on a timer, instead of being event-driven and declaring everything it needs.

I'm sure if I cared enough to go looking, I'd find him contributing to the exact same authoritarian campaigns and bullshit.

Billionaires are like birds of a feather. Even Tim Cook donated to the stupid fucking ballroom. Why would I think any of these guys are "on our side" ?

So your take is that it's a nonviable solution for everyone, everywhere because you had a contractor who acted like a crook?

Meanwhile, when we moved into this house, I called up an electrician and had him come out the same week for a free estimate, and then the next week they put in exactly the circuit I needed for a very reasonable price.

Anecdote != data. Neither yours or mine.

Good lord.

You'll have to explain that one. Literally millions of installs out there, and we're not hearing of a large percentage of sudden and total roof compromise, are we?

Save the FUD for social media - we deal with facts and statistics here.

Fair enough.

It might be possible on a MacBook Pro with the "Max" CPU but I doubt it would sustain 100/sec

Especially since, if we're honest, most bugs and misses in software are bugs and misses in the spec.

No matter how experienced the entity is that is writing code, if you give a shit specification, you get a shit product.

Until Congress changes the name, there most certainly is.

Wank.