its a noble effort, but you are posting to an environment where everyone here knows that wind+solar+batteries is cheaper than gas or coal, because the wind and the sun are free, and they have no fuel costs. They also know that the only people who are skeptical about this are climate deniers.

These deniers keep talking about something called Net Present Value and claiming that is the correct way to evaluate and compare costs of generating systems. Net Present Value is a concept you will find in all kinds of Corporate Finance textbooks, well, do I need to say more? Its hetero-normative, racist, patriarchal and neo-colonial, and probably Islamophobic and transphobic with it and denies indigenous wisdom. Its on the wrong side of history, like coal, gas and nukes. Of course it pretends that wind+solar+batteries is actually a very expensive technology.

Well it would, wouldn't it?

What's the problem?

All they have to do is build more wind and solar (and batteries). Everyone except a few climate denialists knows that wind+solar+batteries is far cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear and can generate all the electricity anyone could conceivably need from free fuel, the sun and the air.

There is absolutely no need to restrict the installation of data centers, and there is no reason whatever why their power demands should raise prices. In fact, they should lower prices, because they will be at the spearhead of the energy transition, because it will lead to a larger and larger proportion of generation moving away from legacy technology to cheap clean power.

This is so obvious to us all here on Slashdot that its a mystery why the local politicians don't see it too.

If it's in the common part of a bathroom (ie: the sinks), where there could be any number of people, it's fair game. But...
A) If the observer is in the wrong bathroom, and/or
B) if the observer is peeking in to stalls or over urinal dividers,
then that is clearly in the wrong.

In short, the presence or lack of a recording device is irrelevant. Your choice of "bathroom" as a location is intended to invoke shock, but there is nothing different. Actively breaching areas where there is an expectation of privacy is an intrusion and can and should be punished. Observing anyone anywhere in any situation with any device where there is no inherent expectation of privacy is FAIR GAME. There is nothing new here. Anywhere I can use my eyeballs I can use a pair of recording glasses.

Why does it matter? However creepy that may be, how is sitting across from someone and looking at them stalking? I can and will look at anything I want, any time I want, and I'll enforce that right any way necessary against any aggressor. And if I can look at anything I want, as long as I am not in a jurisdiction that bans recording, then I can record anything I want.

Are you going to gouge out that same "incel"'s eyes if he even looks at that "pretty girl"? How are you going to enforce making people forget pretty girls?

How is anyone looking at anything predatory? It is the very definition of harmless. Having something that augments memory is also harmless.

In short, as long as those glasses are actually on someone's face, there is nothing harmful about using them to record anything you want.

Sooner or later we're all going to have implants that do the same thing. You might as well get it through your thick skull now that if you go out in public, you are fair game for anyone to look at, remember, or record.

It's not quite that easy, even with AI.
First you need a pull request with a plausible sounding purpose. In fact, you need a stated purpose which is both plausible and interesting.
Which means the maintainer:
1) Determines whether the purpose is interesting enough on its face to warrant attention
2) Then investigates whether the code does what the purpose says it does, which is in the broad strokes is much much easier than just investigating a random piece of code.

You don't implement code at the recommendation of AI. But you can certainly turf code on that basis. No one is saying maintainers should implement based on AI review. But it can certainly help as a rapid gatekeeper of what passes the smell test.

In short, the problems are being grossly overstated. And their remedy is far in excess of the problem, which leads me to believe this is mostly the problem being used as an excuse for project management changes being made for other reasons.

I typically like my posts to stand on their own, but in this case, after re-reading the source article, I just had to add, it's no wonder I've never heard of Ladybird Browser before today. Nor will I likely hear about it in the future again either.

This is more than just a halt to pull requests...

...this is an end to all public contribution whatsoever.

While this is their project and they are free to do that, I take issue with labelling it as an end to pull requests when it's actually an end to any public contribution.

There is an answer to disingenuous pull requests. That is doing the work to review the code before it's implemented. Whether that's other AI tools, manual code reviews, or sandboxing and testing on a VM, nothing less than all of this should be being done anyway.

This has been the case exactly never. Now, they may have used size = effort = metric-of-good-faith, but that was their assumption and their mistake. Again, shutting down pull requests and public contribution is not the remedy for the fact this false assumption was made in the past. That remedy is a return to (or start of) vigilance.

When I saw a clip of a baby Yoda slinging the force around willy nilly I realized that Lucasfilm had literally no clue about their own lore any more and had just compromised the whole concept of the force worse than even midi-chlorians ever did. The force requires both discipline and Purpose. They compromised the whole concept of the force for a cheap sight gag.

Besides, the whole story line blowing Boba Fett up into an anti-hero and then building a whole race around the concept was just another case of the tail wagging the dog.

For both reasons I will never watch an episode of the Mandalorian, and definitely not any movie based on it.

Indeed. They simply applied the standard translation matrix to a US company's PR-speak:

This...

...is why...

this.

When they can slop any swill into the trough and the pigs come running, why put in anything different?

so don't blame others for your inability to copy and paste.

on the screen when it's a one-liner

What OS was he using before?

If the executive director wasn't already using it almost solely, that's an OS I'm going to use exactly never.

To propagate through a huge network, 23 minutes max from deletion to all nodes honouring that is pretty respectable. The title "Google API Keys Remain Active After Deletion" while technically true, as a headline it implies something more at work than simple propagation delay. And the text of the Slashdot post "...despite Google Cloud's UI claiming that once a key is deleted it can no longer make API requests..." is a disingenuous clause that also strongly implies darker forces than propagation delay.

While I'm no lover of Google, this is not Slashdot-worthy. Even by the standards of what Slashdot has become.

Anyone with legal experience answer, I'm curious how a question of statute of limitations went to the jury. Is that not a decision of law? And if that was a major factor, how was that not decided first? A full trial wasn't needed to decide whether or not there was even grounds to sue.