Do you really mean that if your git repo were corrupted, restoring a snapshot of the repo from backups wouldn't work? If that's true, then it sounds like your backup system is broken. The hashes after restoring ought to be identical to what they were before the backup.

If git used the files' iNode numbers for its hashes, then I could understand how a filesystem-based backup/restore might not really work; you'd have to backup at the block level instead. But git doesn't use the iNode numbers.

git isn't magical. It only knows files. It doesn't know if you moved the repo, copied the the repo, or restored the repo from a ten year old backup. I have moved git repos around plenty of times, `cp -a`ed directories with repos, tared and un-tared directories that contain repos, and the copies have always Just Worked without any hash mismatches.

mkdir ~/test. cd ~/test. git init, touch test.txt, git add test.txt and git commit. cp -a ~/test ~/test2. cd ~/test2 and check out the backup repo. The backup is valid. Then simulate a disaster with rm -rf ~/test. Then recover from the disaster with cp -a ~/test2 ~/test and you've just restored a repo from filesystem-level backup. The resulting repo works perfectly and its hashes aren't off. git has no idea you deleted and restored under its nose. Try it yourself.

What am I missing? I'm not surprised to be called idiotic, and the shoe often fits. But I'm surprised to be called that over this.

My router's hardware's parts were made in China. Its software was made as a worldwide effort but the team seems to be officially based in the Netherlands. And I'm not asking my government's permission for updating either one. Trumptards and their micromanaging far-left centralized-economic-planners can go fuck themselves. Keep your damn dirty ape hands off my computers, comrade.

Turning the link purple to go to the report, then following that link to the actual study, you can look at those concerns.

Oddly enough, the post-doc researchers at University College London doing research in behavioral science and psychiatry, published through Oxford University, do indeed answer the questions.

The paper shows is something they noticed and want to investigate further, presented as "the first evidence" not a final conclusion. They started from the UK Household Longitudinal Study data, data going back to 1991 and publicly available to any registered researcher, and cross checked against a few others with related sampling information. They looked at ages from 16 to 90, marital status, children, education level, employment status, household income, area deprivation index (living in poor areas to rich areas) and reported disabilities.

Is there room for consciousness to manifest in a brain?

If the data center is primarily intended for use by (exclusively or nearly exclusively) the people in the neighborhood, sure, it could make sense. I know this is quaint and out-of-date but one can imagine a neighborhood squid cache, NNTP server, modern Netflix cache, etc for the neighborhood. Have it be connectable by a high-speed neighborhood LAN, to share the 'hood's WAN.

Just a classic neighborhood network coop, but with some added caching services, which is what would cause it to be called a "datacenter" instead of a "router." ;-)

As if that would really happen. And that's sure not what this is.

Once again, I'm not shocked by the percentage laid off, but I'm shocked by the number of individuals. If 700 people was 14% of their workforce, then this company had about a hundred times as many employees as I would have guessed. Not that my guesses are particularly well-informed, but when I look at what this company's product appears to be and compare it to my own experiences, I can't help but make guesses that are apparently 99% off! (I'm that dumb!?)

What do employees at these large companies do all day? Why were they hired in the first place, or why weren't they laid off many years ago? I just don't get it.

I don't mean it as a put-down of their products, but on the surface it just doesn't look like their thousands of employees do anything bigger or more complicated than my dozen-developers-sized team (which is, itself, much larger than the teams I've been on in previous decades). Is everyone's productivity just .. eaten up by labor-not-scaling problems? Do I need to really read the Mythical Man Month instead of treating it as distant folklore that I'll some day get to?

Or is the answer in some other direction? Part of me thinks I should just drop it, and accept that I really don't know jack shit about the profession I've had for the last 40 years.

I can't really say it's bad for it to be doing these seemingly-bad things, until I know the answer to this: what is the app's intended purpose? Why would/should a person use it?

If it's intended to inconvenience/expose/punish users for trying to find out things about the White House, then maybe the application is doing the right thing.

Restore the repo from backup at the filesystem level, and the hash will be valid because it was valid at the time you backed up.

Those guys can't even vet their own social media posts, and those are ~100 characters of ASCII text. The chances of them being able to meaningfully review a multi-gigabyte binary file are exactly zero.

The same thing is occurring in YouTube too. Someone posts a video with a clickbait title. It's an AI voice reading an AI script showing video that's only tangentially related to the script. Overall, the video isn't outright bad. But, it's not particularly good either. They're just poor quality. They all just seem to ramble on for a pre-determined amount of time and then stop.

The problem is that the shear number of these videos and channels is unreal. Someone's automated the creation of these channels and videos. This someone is pumping out these videos faster than you can block whole channels.

Further, it's impossible to tell which channel has human-generated content and which is all-AI. YouTube doesn't help at all since Google is promoting the usage of AI. So, the service is getting flooded with poor-quality AI content. As a YouTube user, you either deal with this AI enshittification or you stop using YouTube.

Even if this crazy minimum-age shit weren't happening, it's generally a good idea to give incorrect information. Have one birthday for site x and a different birthday for site y. Use one of your parent's birthdays here, and a celebrity's birthday there. Pollute the public data and cause confusion.

If minimum age laws help to encourage data public data pollution (all of which arguably shouldn't be public at all anyway), then at least one good thing will have come out of it.

Let's get it up to 84% of parents helping their kids bypass age checks.

... other, more obscure platforms are also supported, but if you want to run NetHack on them, you'll have to compile it yourself from source. Kind of a baller move if you ask me :)

Trump's actions are 100% Trump's responsibility ("the buck stops here" is still part of the Presidential employment contract, even if Trump doesn't think so).

OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Netanyahu played hardball to "encourage" Trump to help. It's one of the downsides of having a "colorful" sex life in your youth and then gaining political power later on -- too many people have solid evidence of your transgressions, and now motivation to use them to influence your decision-making.

So when Netanyahu phones Trump up and says "join my war, or else I'll release these Epstein videos of you having group sex with underage girls", does Trump do the principled thing and refuse? Or does he take the coward's way out, and allow Israel to dictate US policy in exchange for temporarily saving his own political skin? I think we know the answer to that.