The 2.(stable/devel).patchlevel format worked extremely well and stopped version number explosions. The main drawback to it was that it was prior to git, and so the patchlevel could get very high. We also don't need stable/devel, any more, as we've now got one tree for stable and a different tree for devel.

Having said that, I did very much like the three digit split, even though (as Linus as repeatedly said) it was something of a fiction at times. We do sort-of have that, now, with the third digit being used to mark backported stability fix rounds. And, yes, I would agree that version numbering is a fiction of sorts anyway.

I really don't like the major number incrementing at the speed it does, though. Yeah, 3.5 years between a major number increment is sort-of ok. That's 42 months, and 42 is indeed the answer to life, the universe, and everything. And an OS kernel isn't. in all fairness, really susceptible to being divided up into the major.minor.patch format because none of these really mean anything in this sort of a context.

Dunno how you'd really go about improving the system.

Linux removes a feature from a kernel under one of two conditions only:

1. The feature isn't maintained any more AND is now so stale it cannot compile AND nobody is willing to take on the work to make it work
2. The feature refers to hardware that is so obsolete that the number of users is effectively zero insofar as anyone is capable of determining

As a result, you're generally safe with anything that is built into the official Linux kernel tree. The API provided to applications is incredibly stable and Linus reputedly has an army of dedicated berserker Vikings enforcing this.

However, binary-only drivers and non-standard components are another matter, as they're maintained out-of-tree and don't always comply with Linux kernel practices. This is the only area you have to be careful, as distros aren't always clear as to what is official and what is stuff they've grabbed off the net and linked in.

Why bother? All you need to do is to DNAT at an intermediate point and identify a nearby doughnut shop as a repair facility. The F35s will then land there and you can reprogram them whilst the pilots are stuffing themselves.

Oh. No. Wait. That's cops. Cops don't use F35s (yet).

Always always always remember that Loki can beat Odin.

It depends. If the cats of the world decide to rise up in revolution (which, given the quality of catfood, is entirely plausible), then being able to control all the vacuum cleaners would be the only defence.

The IMF uses the proper definition.

I think we can trust those who actually have access to the data to have represented it accurately. If you have a problem with the results, then that's not a fault with the definition.

Nobody has discussed cold fusion seriously in many decades. Hot fusion is catastrophically under-funded (the total spent on fusion research globally in the lat 60 years is about the same as spent just on subsidies for the fossil fuel industry every three days, to give you a perspective on how expensive energy work actually is even for fuels that are simple and well understood).

If you spent as much on fusion yearly as you spend on fossil fuels yearly, then fusion will be cracked before 2030. If you underfund it, relative to the complexity of the problem, then convergence is guaranteed asymptotic.

Fossil fuels are globally subsidised to the tune of $11 million every minute, according to the International Monetary Fund. That money has to come from somewhere, and there's no way in hell a billionaire is subsidising some soccer mum's SUV. Which mean that the money has to come out of taxes.

So it's not particularly cheap, net. It's just that the total cost is diffused across the food you buy, the house you own, the car tags, the money you earn. All of these different taxes contribute some percentage of the cost of the coal and oil. However, collecting and distributing the money isn't free, which means that you're actually paying MORE than you would if you were paying honestly.

Still, if people want to pay more and get less, and die young as a result, that's really their business. Of course, they're making other people die young, too, but that's a democracy for you.

It wouldn't be so bad, but there are hardly any lumberjacks in the UK.

*runs away and hides from an irate mob of Monty Python fans

Seriously, it very much depends on the area. Rugby, a town-borderline-city, has fewer pubs than the Marple/Mellor collection of villages up in t' norf. This is mostly because Rugby is a run-down dump with a dying town centre and hardly anything left in it, whereas Marple (although it lost its engineering back in the 60s) is a major commuter/retirement town with just enough rational people to keep the businesses vibrant and alive.

And that's what keeps pubs open. Not the economy, but the attitude.

As music evolves, it has tended to become simpler, more repetitive, less original, and basically BORING AS ALL F.

(And those who know me on Slashdot, I think this is the third time I've used that sort of language since the site came into operation, which should tell you something about just how bad modern music is.)

If the only music out there is, honestly, turgid, then having it AI-generated simply eliminates the brain-damage induced by having to memorise and play these excuses for songs.

You cannot blame people for skipping the middleman when the middleman honestly doesn't do any better of a job.

Yeah, I fully understand, not everyone wants to listen to 22-minute metal anthems about the universe (even if it does feature Richard Dawkins and fireworks), or indeed 18 minute songs about exploding air balloons, even if I am of the personal opinion that said people should seek help. And people are going to like what they like.

But if you're going to object to AI music, then the only way that's ever going to work is if you reverse the trend and make songs that have sophistication that AI cannot match.

Personally, I have no problem with electronic music or even music wholly manufactured through complex electronics, and regard Delia Derbyshire and Daphne Oram as polymath geniuses that really should have been respected in their lifetimes, but I'd also argue that they actually made an effort to do precisely what I'm describing. They did not, as a rule, make stuff that was simple, unless ordered by higher-ups to do so. It would not be hard to mix their techniques with modern synthesiser ideas and generative systems to produce much more sophisticated music of decent quality.

The Beatles were capable of producing an album over a weekend.

If they'd had the inclination (and assorted supplies best left undiscussed), they were more than capable of churning out 52 albums a year. Whilst we must be grateful for small mercies (it would likely have had an impact on quality), I would argue that the 60s were not short of new music.

I'm tempted to do a recompilation of an old MCC distribution, just to mess with people now. :P (MCC was the very very first Linux distro.)

I found a few that are more recent than the one I saw.

https://portlandpress.com/bioc...
https://royalsocietypublishing...
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729...

According to the researchers involved (I emailed them directly), the difference is due to retrotransponsons moving the genes into a different order rather than a simple mosaic effect.

But the non-coding regions do seem to be metadata used to interpret and regulate genes, and the interpretation of genes is impacted by placement (the brain has no two neurons with the same genome - a completely pointless mechanism that is expensive on energy and carries high risk unless there's an actual benefit from it).

As a result, we cannot assume mutations in the non-coding regions are "safe". The best I'd feel comfortable with is "the effects don't appear to be harmful so far, and there doesn't seem to be any immediate health impact". Those with a better understanding of generics are welcome to correct me on this, but I think it wisest to be conservative on both optimism and pessimism.