The entire description sounds Claudish, and "160,000 lines of original C, small enough for one person" is utter BS. Must have been written by AI and said human who is claiming to read all that code has probably never worked on a project nearly as big. 160k LOC per person is completely unrealistic. Already at 20k most devs become very slow, i.e., can no longer remember how all of it worked and need to refamiliarise themselves with parts of the code when they review changes to it.

Absolutely not testable (see section on Provability). I personally don't like the connotation of religion, because it assumes some form of "practicing". A "belief" might be a better word.

The main difference I'm trying to make between a simulation and a logical consequence is that of a materialized world (in the simulation), which would require a lot of computational power in the outside world. Logical consequences "exist" even if no one has ever thought of them, and hence they are also not limited by any sort of computational needs.

I find the title misleading. It suggests that the current sudo is not memory-safe, while in reality it is just not written in a memory-safe language. That attribute means very different things when talking about a language and a program. It honestly seems a bit arrogant from the Rust-fan-block to use that description, as if programs could not be memory safe unless they are written in a language that guarantees memory safety.

Hard to imagine what turn-based strategy would look like today without this long running series.

What all these haters miss to point out is *why* these companies need to change their license: to prevent AWS and other cloud providers to offer a directly competing service on the source that the company, and not AWS, maintains. Sweet deal for Amazon, ruinous for the company that *actually* pays employees to maintain the open-source project. So the solution is to minimally reduce the rights granted under the license to prevent exactly that. In fact *most* uses people care about are still permitted under the Server Side Public License. So claiming that this would now be closed source is garbage. It's similar to the old fight over "GPL is the only real open-source license" because it is militantly open-source: forcing all derivatives to adopt the same license. So please stop claiming that you are the judge of what is open-source and what isn't. The discussion needs to be more nuanced. Does Redis' license change *really* stop you from building on it the way you have been, or are you just arguing an ideological case?

There are lot of startups offering UV-C robots, not just UVD Robots, which seems to be getting all the attention. There is list of over 40 such robots from all over the world here.

Great suggestion! Sorry for the delay. This is implemented now. We've actually already added it a few days ago and I had meant to respond earlier but forgot.

"Detection of Terahertz Magnetic Resonance Could Revolutionize Electronics" was the headline, but no mention of *how* terahertz detection would revolutionize electronics. So I went and got the scoop of why this actually matters (which is what 95% of readers will care about more than about how they did it):

It may just as well be that the number of competing job boards doubles ever year and the postings distribute equally. Reminds me of TV channels: they kept increasing until eventually no one cared anymore and cut cable all together and became more selective again about what they subscribe to (netflix, hulu, hbo, etc.). With this constant increase in job boards, they may all become collective irrelevant eventually and maybe people are indeed no longer posting jobs on them. So maybe both of these effects are at play? a job-boards bubble?