I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...

Yes, but the study seems to be comparing two groups where there is no reason to think anything else changed. The British diet didn't change in other ways after 1953, the only real difference was that sugar rationing had ended. At least, that would be the claim.

Nostalgia is all very well, but it was not a very healthy diet, lots of white bread, margarine, overcooked and limited number of vegetables. It was eaten in a more disciplined way - before or after 1953 children would not go to the larder or fridge and help themselves. Meals were eaten at mealtimes, with minimal snacking.

There are not very many people alive now who remember those days, but if you can find one and talk to them you get a picture of life which makes it plausible that the change in sugar rationing was a key variable. Other things mentioned, like activity, yes they were very different from now, but they did not change much in 1953, whereas sugar did.

As always no numbers, and argument on an engineering topic which is at the level of literary criticism.

to make the case you need to take a specific system where there is data available, and show that your argument applies there.

The most accessible in a few clicks is the UK. Go to www.gridwatch.co.uk for graphics. If you want the csv data free get it from www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk. Do the work and you will see that in winter there is peak demand of a bit under 50GW and that solar is basically non-existent from about 22GW faceplate. A function mainly of latitude with a contribution from weather. You will also see that there are in most winters periods of a week or ten days when wind generates less than 3GW from faceplate installed base of about 32GW. So what we have here is peak demand with peak low output from wind and solar.

In summer on the other hand you have peak solar and long days, but summer is not when you get peak demand.

What's the result of all this? Its that if you want to supply 50GW peak you have to have more than 50GW gas generation. But having it, you then only use it for part of the time, because part of the time you have wind and solar peaking. Something else also happens, at peak production, which does not coincide with peak demand and often in summer coincides with low demand, you have to turn off the wind.

The UK, if government plans work out, is going to end up with around 200GW of generating capacity to supply about 60GW of peak demand. And in operational terms, its constructing huge amounts of generating capacity off the north coast of Scotland or similar inhospitable places distant from demand. Then it constructs hugely expensive transmission links to bring this generated power to where its needed. It also builds gas to cover calms and nights.

So the result is, it pays people to install wind, then it pays them not to generate from it. Then it pays others to install gas and generate from it in the timesa when the guys its paying not to generate comply and turn off. The result of this is the highest electricity prices in the industrialized countries - and no, I am not spoon feeding you numbers, llook it up for yourself!. And it is only getting worse. The more wind they install, the more they have to pay to turn off, and however much wind they install the lows are still going to need gas to cover. The same thing applies to solar. It doesn't matter how much you install, at 5pm on a January evening, its going to be producing zero.

What you can see from the UK is that the attempt to move to 'renewables' is an attempt to do the impossible. Its trying to run a country's electricity supply with technologies that are guaranteed to have peaks of production which coincide with lows of demand, and lows of production that coincide with peaks of demand. It is not working, and as the proportion of wind and solar rises its going to get worse.

All this is happening with the background of the program to move to EVs and heat pumps. And they also have the fantasy of a huge data center industry. Right, with expensive and unreliable electricity? Because they have also just empowered the network operator to do rolling blackouts, which they call 'demand management'.

This is what happens when you have people with degrees in literature or media studies or some kind of vague social subjects enthusiastically trying to run the power generation for an industrial economy, and having no idea how to plan and no concept of engineering. They just keep saying that the wind and sun are free - as if that had any bearing. And they keep applauding whenever wind and solar reach a peak of a day or a week or month, not seeing that that is part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Get some numbers and do some work. And read the Royal Society's report on electricity storage, which blows the idea that batteries are the answer into the air.

To make AC go completely away? Maybe.

Just joking. I meant Firefox, as in "Would I donate money to Firefox for a browser-only VPN?"

The answer is quite clear on this one. No. There are plenty of VPNs in the market and I could buy one if I wanted it, and it would cover my browser, too. But even worse, I actually downloaded Opera to look at the included VPN and concluded it wasn't worth it. Haven't used Opera in a long time now. However as Firefox continues to add unwanted cruft they are increasing the pressure to switch to some other browser. Perhaps Opera?

Silly to talk about solutions on the pointless rant-hub Slashdot has devolved into. Even when the same solution approach could apply to fix some of Slashdot's ancient problems. "Would I donate to add Unicode support to Slashdot?" Quite possibly yes, but not an option. Or what about "to improve the moderation system" or various other things. And I am convinced no such option will ever appear 'round these parts.

So rather than flog that dead horse I'll recycle the ancient joke "What's your better idea?"

Your tone is belligerent and you clearly did not read what I actually wrote. Overall, your reply is not even worth an apology for my poor writing nor an invitation to ask for clarification.

So I'll just say you're still wrong. Completely. It appears you couldn't catch a clue if you were dipped in clue musk and dropped in a field of rampaging clues at the height of clue mating season.

But if you were going for funny, then you didn't get there. (Which was actually the response I anticipated.)

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

Short version:

Winston Churchill was quite biased against fascist germany and its leadership. Yet he was still correct that they were a great danger to Europe.

Longer version:

Biased and Wrong are too different things. Those with a Bias will absolutely tell the truth when it coincidentally aligns with them. It would be quote ignorant not to listen to both sides is a debate, including the side you are predisposed against.

Anonymous insiders and whistleblowers are quite common in journalism.

Now go talk to the people of those countries who are not under the influence of totalitarian socialists.

No, you conflate pop culture discussions with historical discussions.

That’s a misrepresentation of socialism. Also, those goals exist in both traditional liberalism and conservatism. The difference is in what policies will get us to those goals.

Flipping one erroneous argument to a contrary erroneous argument does not prove anything.

I understood it very well. He was quite clear in his beliefs.

I studied the writing of Che, The Weatherman, etc in the early 80s while at college. I even had the opportunity to listen to well known radicals who came to speak at my university.

While socialism can cover a range of implementations, the DSA are literally quoting Marx and describing how the seek to end the US Government..

Things contrary to your ideology are not lies.

That’s some major denial of inconvenient truths you have there.

LOL. And yet history agrees with me. Might want to apply your “insights” to yourself.

FDR was not a socialist.

American modern conservatives primary planks are to take rights away from marginalized group; which s fucking evil.

Such as?