Are you a small businessman? Do you own a chain of pizza restaurants? Are you fed up of having to have both pizza ovens AND computers in your strip mall locations, taking up space?

Introducing the Athlon IV Combined Pizza Oven and Office Computer! Now while you're doing your accounts, accepting online orders, and otherwise computering, you can heat up your pizzas to 700 degrees with the exact same device!

With its patented technology, developed for the last 20 years by former engineers of computer giants Intel and AMD, the same computing power used to calculate your net profit is also used to melt cheese, heat up pepperoni, and bake a perfect pizza crust!

Available at your local Office and Restaurant Supply Store, this device will save space, save money, and make delicious pizza!

Caution: Pizza may be hot.

Biden was not an enthusiastic supporter of genocide anywhere. He repeatedly called for Israel to stop. He was required, by law, to provide Israel with certain aid, and did so reluctantly. You can blame Congress for that. Could he have ignored the law? Sure, but then we'd have lived under in a country where the President isn't equal under the law and not required to follow it... about a year earlier.

Also Biden didn't, ultimately, stand for election in November of 2024.

Not sure what you're referring to. Let's try it this way.

Imagine you are a manager or a CO and you have an employee who keep spending an enormous amount of time working on the exact thing you hired him for. He gets frustrated when he finds stuff he CAN'T explain, wants to research further, and you just brush him off because you really hired him to NOT find anything.

This is putting the cart before the horse. If people are using the services supported by the data centers, then why do we need more?

The reality is that the data centers are being built because the AI companies are desperately trying to give the impression that there's going to be a massive increase in demand for *checks notes* spicy autocomplete in the future. But it's far from certain that's true. Everything we've seen so far suggests a bubble - the technology is overhyped, a fair amount of usage of it is forced, the forced usage is tremendously unpopular, and anyone who does a Google search and gets a Gemini response who fact checks the response can see it's overdone to the point of uselessness. (Gemini would be better of compiling a list of relevant links rather than trying to answer the question itself given how often it's completely 100% wrong.)

If you or some dependency of something you run uses PostgreSQL, be aware that Linux 7.0 has changes that causes a 50% performance hit on the former. The Linux people are adamant that the PGSQL people should change their code, despite the fact it's not due to a bug or anything similar.

Until you can migrate to a newer PGSQL with the changes that the Linux people are demanding, with time taken to test and make sure these work (it's not a trivial fix, the PGSQL people literally have to rewrite a critical part of the code), you should probably pin an earlier kernel, or use one patched to support PREEMPT_NONE.

Here's a non-AI article that explains the issue: https://www.phoronix.com/news/...

If I were a distro maker, I'd not touch Linux 7.x until the PostgreSQL people have had a chance to release changes and the code is mature enough to use, though alas that could be years given bugs and security issues with anything the PGSQL people do could take years to surface.

> The same /. bunch who seem to generally believe that "everyone should learn coding!"

There's a /. bunch who believe this? Usually articles posted here promoting a "Learn to code" program get a fair amount of skeptism.

> are a fairly narrow socio economic cadre who would predictably denigrate faith. As Haidt would define you/us, it's WEIRD: Western, educated, individualist, rich, and democratic.

OK, and?

I think the major issue here isn't "People who live by faith can't have fulfilling lives", that's not an issue being raised here. At issue is the idea morality automatically comes from faith or even reasonably comes from faith. And there's little to suggest it does. Faiths that promote some form of code of morality have survived evolutionarily because there are people in every society who cannot behave morally without a "big stick", we call them psychopaths, and fear that God is going to strike you down for doing a bad thing is certainly a big stick. And moral societies generally last longer than immoral ones.

The problem is with morality being equated to religion or even believing that a religion's commandments are always about morality. Someone above suggested Claude should be trained upon the 15 *drops stone tablet* I mean 10 commandments. Here's a list of them:

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall make no idols
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. You shall not covet.

How many of these are about morality, and how many are about protecting the religion itself? 1-4 are all about protecting the religion.

5 is... oddly specific. 6-9 we can reasonably say are reasonable coding of actual moral principles, even if arguably 9 seems to be a little too narrow in scope. 10 is about social survival, and oddly would be in opposition to the current economies of the Western World. It's certainly not a moral rule though.

(Now before any of you say "But insulting God is immoral", bear in mind that's a circular moral, it's only immoral because you consider the Bible to be morals. Also FWIW the principle Gods are good is a Judaeo-Christian thing, the Roman gods certainly weren't considered that. AND TO BE VERY CLEAR: the fact God doesn't like it will not be considered a definition of "immoral" here. The question is whether morality can be learned from religion, and that very question precludes the idea that morality is defined by it.)

Now the Bible covers a whole lot of things not in the 10 commandments too. And people treat them as declarations of morality. But they're, again, about survival. How is eating shellfish or pig meat immoral? It isn't. Those passages are in there because of self protection of the religion by trying to avoid followers getting food poisoning in the pre-refrigeration era.

What about homosexuality? What about sodomy (intentionally non-reproductive sex)? Rape is obviously immoral, as is sex with children, but homosexuality is an oddly specific to outlaw. Some interpretations of the Bible claim there's nothing there in the first place, that the passages that supposedly bolster it the Bible being homophobic are there because of misinterpreting rules against rape and sex with children. Certainly there's evidence the King James edition misinterpreted paragraphs to make them more homophobic.

But, taking it at face value, is the Bible claiming consensual adults-only sodomy is immoral, or is the Bible saying God doesn't like it? And if the latter, then is it possible that, again, it's a survival of the religion thing: that the writers of the Judaeo-christian texts wanted rules that ensured that followers would have plenty of offspring, or that Christianity survived (hence these rules being useful) because of the limits on non-reproductive sex?

The problem here is that the Bible introduces rules for living for multiple reasons. Not everything in the Bible can be interpreted as a rule to prevent psychopaths from doing bad things. Many are there just to prop up the religion itself.

For that reason, coupled with the fact that... I mean, some of the people who wear their Christianity on their sleeves are some of the most horrible people I've met (not all of them, I've met some lovely ones too)... I find the idea of using religion as a base for a code of morality deeply troubling.

Between Windows getting shittier and shittier, Windows laptops getting shittier and shittier, and RAM prices surging, now's the perfect time to switch. With the RAM pricing, a MacBook Pro is actually priced considerably less than a comparably specced ThinkPad, and the Air/Neo are cleaning up on the lower end laptops. I really wish there was hardware similar in build quality to the MacBooks that ran Linux, but for now there's not. Yes, I'm aware of Asahi Linux, but that's not quite there yet, but hopefully it will be at some point.

Two ways in which it could be fixed:

1. An expanded core library with all of the functionality you'd need that needs to be secure, from threadpools to hashing and SSL implementations. Doesn't have to be as huge as Java, but shouldn't be as absurdly minimal as Rust's current offering which pretty much forces everyone to use third party crates.

2. A curated alternative to crates.io that's specifically supported and prioritized by the language. Deprecate crates.io in its current form, prevent use of 'unsafe' in crates imported from there, and make it easy to import such crates into vendor/.

I think these are practical. The second one will cause some upset among people who don't have a problem with NPM/composer style dependency repos, but I also think they'll at least understand why the status quo is unsustainable.

It's aimed at anything C++ would be used for, and is being used in the same scopes. Some system programming, some application programming. Chrome is now accepting Rust code, and of course Rust originated at Mozilla, and was intended to be the language Firefox would migrate to. An artifact of that effort, Servo, is still under development as an independent project.

I don't think it's anywhere near plateaued FWIW. It has an excited cohort of programmers using it who are as annoying... I mean... enthusiastic as Python programmers were in the 2000s. It does need some clean up in some areas, specifically the NPM/composer-style external library management which is a security nightmare and just plain idiotic. But these are solvable problems.

You most certainly can. Carter inherited a bad economy, and put in place specific policies that are, today, seen as the policies that solved the problems, noteably:

- Monetarist economics to deal with stagflation
- Massive Deregulation, especially with transportation

The effects of those policies took time to trickle into the economy, because the situation was absolutely terrible after eight years of Nixon/Ford, which included abandonment of the gold standard, and of course the energy crisis. But those were absolutely things that fixed a terrible economy, and Reagan's only involvement there was to basically take credit for it when the economy started to run again.

Ironically, Biden proved that Carter went overboard, lowering inflation to normal levels by the end of his term without ending full employment. But there's also a fair argument that Trump neither helped nor overly harmed the post-Obama economy, as the major crisis that happened under his watch was COVID, and that did impact things in a way few presidents could be expected to control.

Did Biden get credit? Of course not. Just like Carter, he got blamed for the bad economy he inherited, and because inflation was only lowered by the end of his term, people didn't notice because they were still comparing things to 3-4 years ago, not one year.

If the Biden administration had done it, I would have been against it.

Of course, they didn't. Every time someone has come up with that allegation it turned out that the "evidence" they came up with didn't show that at all. At "worst" they made reasonable pleas in public, without using threats, to social networks to clamp down on COVID misinformation - which isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

If you believe otherwise, please show the court case where the Biden administration actually tried to force Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, or any other social network to reveal the details they have on someone who was promoting vaccine misinformation?

And yes, it matters that it's a court case, because that's what's happening here, and you're telling us they did the same thing.

BTW, this is actually a lie. A mod can't ban you from all of Reddit. Only an admin can. So whatever you did was so egregious that someone was able to report it as bad to an admin, and the admin felt it was bad enough to ban you.

Regardless, there's a world of difference between being banned from a website and being thrown in jail.

> And I wasn't banned from a shitty little forum, I was banned by a mod of that shitty little forum FROM ALL OF REDDIT.

OMG! That's exactly like going to jail!

> Yes. Your point ?

You appear to think they're the same thing, as you just pointed out. Sorry if reading comprehension is an issue for you. I thought it was obvious in my comment, but apparently not.

A private forum telling you to get knotted is not the same as a government putting you in prison. These are different things. The first isn't just far lesser an issue, it's actually normal and how we want things to be. We want private forums to curate their content and their users, because forums are useless otherwise. There's a reason people go to Reddit and not, say, Yahoo comments, or Slashdot, to get information about something.

What we don't want is a world where people go to prison for just expressing essentially peaceful points of view. (Please do not reply with examples of people promoting crimes or encouraging violence against entire groups of people being targeted by law enforcement, those are not "peaceful points of view")

FWIW, did you know you can create new accounts on Reddit? It's a thing. Maybe change your IP first, but they really can't "ban" you, they can only close your existing account. Otherwise, Wordpress can be hosted on a $1/mo VPS, if you really can't get your bullshit out some other way. Or even self hosted if your ISP doesn't block incoming port 443 and gives you a static (or at least rarely changing) IP. You're on a tech website, you should know this, and you should even know how to do it. Stop fucking whining.

The affirmative defenses from the person whose name they're trying to get suggests that that law is clearly being abused and has no relevance here, which makes me wonder if someone within the DoJ is intentionally trying to throw the case. Let's hope so!

You do understand there's a difference between being banned from a forum for breaking some forum rule, and being thrown in prison, right?