sazz

yeah. lets plan the conference in one of the hottest weeks in the year and then cancel it due to hot weather.

Well ... it speaks for their competence. It's like creating a Teams meeting about classified security issues on Windows 95 systems...

I don't need politics on my desktop, so no to Chimera Linux.

The hope that humanity has learned something from wasting its time clicking away completely useless cookie pop-ups on websites has probably died once and for all.

...because you don't have to modulate renewable energy?

That's right, Germany sells electricity to other countries during the day and buys electricity in the evening because there is no sun then.

The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.

Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.

WTF about your understanding of the German power grid, I would say.

Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.

The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?

As an Asperger it is very funny to see how people react on that bot behaviour. That behaviour is 100% trained from human behaviour especially that constantly whining and that pathetic self expression of how progressive and inclusive everyone is.

Never thinking about that this actual rude behaviour might come back at some point to yourself - and it was not a question of if but just of when.

Well, question answered.

It's not a good idea to spread fake news like this correctiv disinformation:

"At the center of the proceedings is a Tagesschau report that was based on misleading assessments of the Correctiv report. It was falsely claimed that the expulsion of German citizens and the revocation of citizenship based on racist criteria had been discussed at the meeting in Potsdam. This was refuted by affidavits from the participants."

https://www.hoecker.eu/news/wer-auf-correctiv-setzt-zahlt-dr...

more details: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/correctiv-ca...

Certified by agencies of the left extremist government which treats the justification as classified information.

Moreover, one of these agencies is run by a left-wing comrade who is a qualified social education worker. However, the agency should actually be headed by a lawyer, as in the Thuringian law, which was simply reinterpreted in the case of Stephan J. Kramer.

So yeah, that's an trustworthy argument.

An actor is already impersonating somebody else in a play, movie or television. This bill is there to protect the income of an actor.

Actually it is recursive: Why should it be forbidden to create an artificial person which impersonates the actor impersonating the role in a movie or play?

So AI is forbidden to impersonate somebody who impersonates somebody else?

For me, this discussion won't lead anywhere because it covers the wrong topic.

It's not about Rust or C - it's about transparency. The existing maintainers assume that it is not a priority for them whether they break something downstream or not. They therefore work in a space with interfaces that they can change as they see fit, without giving any guarantees as to their continued existence or wanting to subordinate themselves to a defined change process.

Rust is just a symptom of growing pains. Growth would be achieved if they could agree on common rules which would foster independent development linked by the interface contracts.

Instead, the issue is that established maintainers have grown fond of their zoo and are only pursuing their own priorities in a landlord-like manner. On the other hand, they see new technologies appearing and disappearing on the horizon and have consequently realized that a new technology or language cannot improve an existing system.

And yet they are classically talking past each other.

The protocols provide first-hand evidence that a large part of the measures such as lockdowns, masks, vaccination recommendations were not based on science, but were invented by politicians based on their own interests.

The RKI was only used to sell these orders to the public by given their ideas a scientific face.

If it's a public good, then it's a public good. So whoever wants to use it according to the license it's fine.

If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.

I think this policy is yet another example of ethical overengineering.

Yes, of course, ChatGPT & Co. are very unlikely to take any real care about what they give their models to learn - especially with regard to copyright.

For a better perspective, I always try to transfer the behavior to the analog world. In this sense, someone who, for example, illegally obtains a book on Linux (let's say via ebook) would not be ethically in the correct position to contribute to Gentoo, because the knowledge on which their contribution is based would be stolen intellectual property.

I can't imagine that there are any people in this world whose knowledge was obtained exclusively through copyright legal means. We are all in a gray area - one possibly more than the other.

In my view, it is typical of engineers to simply transfer philosophically complicated moral issues to technologies. But this method will never come close to solving anything, because the very complicated analog moral world cannot simply be mapped to 0 or 1.

Oh I loved jQuery.

Anybody remembers DataTables https://datatables.net or X-editable https://vitalets.github.io/x-editable/ ?

The way you state your sentence indicates that you see this as a problem?

As soon as there are significant protests by farmers and middle class against the government, a government-sponsored activist NGO publishes a lurid paper about a meeting of conservatives that took place in November 2023. Two days later, another government NGO named the word "remigration" as the bad word of the year 2023 and a few days later a play was even staged in Berlin about this alleged meeting.

Although the article cannot substantiate its claims in any way (e.g. the alleged "secret plan" has been available to everyone in book form for months), the public service media adopt every assertion without distance and make completely unsavory comparisons with the Third Reich.

The government has thus successfully suppressed the perception of protests by farmers and the middle classes. Propaganda in its purest form.

A long text that covers the current situation well: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/meinungen/correctiv-wannsee-un...

In the end it is exactly the same technical complexity, it is just shifting complexity from point to another.

A proper branching strategy is not a technical solution but a social alignment of people contributing to common product. And it doesn't matter if they are contributing on different repositories or on the different branches. The technical complexity of aligning interfaces is the same in both cases.

"It's often not as easy as you make it sound."

No, it's of course not easy. But the costs in splitting teams up into different repositories and aligning their interfaces is not easy either. My point is they are both the same - just expressed differently.

"There might be a good reason to have independent deployable, testable and releaseable units"

Of course this is the bottom line. But everything you define in the sentence can be achieved with a proper pipeline and repository architecture based on a monolith as well. For example teams could use a branch setup where they own their own team branches capable of merging to master and deploying. Each team could then define their own testing strategy and Definition of Done on their "team master".

Having the ability to release independently is actually a social problem, not a technical one. But the symptom of that social misalignment often shows up as a technical problem (dropping release KPIs, etc.)

So changing from a monolith to microservice will most likely only fight the symptom, not the root cause.

Unfortunately majority defines what is normal ;-)

Speaking from a Release Management point of view going from a monolith to microservices is often done for the wrong reasons.

The only valid reason for actual doing the change seems to be for scaling reasons due to performance bottlenecks. Everything else is just shifting complexity from software development to system maintenance.

Of course, developers will be happy that they have that huge "alignment with other teams" burden off their shoulders. But the clarity when and how a feature is implemented, properly tested across microservices and then activated and hypercared on production will be much harder to reach if the communication between the development teams is not mature enough (which is often the actual reason from breaking up the monolith).

It's not a fluctuation. If you look at the data from NASA, you will see a trend, not an hysterical up and down.

I'm curious - how does Enhance manage state updates?

Is there some mechanism to push component updates to the client once the state changes?

So senior scientists are not working for the good of humanity, but are embedded in a system that is thoroughly corrupted by power.

Science in itself can be a useful tool for gaining knowledge. All scientific knowledge builds on earlier knowledge. But when it is no longer possible to discern which knowledge was created for the honest pursuit of truth and conscience and which for pure power interests, the whole foundation collapses.

As long as the extent of this corruption is not known, one should treat every "scientific finding" with the greatest scepticism, because the findings are no longer trustworthy. Especially those that find wide and welcome dissemination in the media and politics.

This should be kept in mind under all circumstances if one wants to continue listening to the narratives about the "climate apocalypse" that are excellently placed in the media. For here, too, the exact same propaganda mechanisms are used: alleged consensus among all scientists and dissenting opinions are defamed as conspiracy theories and right-wing narratives. Anyone who thinks they will find honest discourse and argumentative competition here should have been taught better by now.

But I have already given up hope. Humanity will make the same mistake again and again.

If you don’t believe the media, at least take a look at this xkcd comic, it puts the problem into perspective very clearly

Yeah, why discuss complex topics when there are comics instead.

The problem is not weather - but Ideocracy getting reality much more faster than anyone predicted.

Fun fact - by replying in that way you exactly prooved my point. Thank you.

P.S.: "looking at graphs" is exactly media. But you don't think about relevance and probability. At least from the past three years you should have learned that scientific models are not religious truth but are an opinion of the modellers.

At this point is anyone really denying drastic climate change?

Anybody who listens and trusts media will most likely think we are living in a drastic climate change. Because media sells fear making people consume more media.

Ever wondered why you constantly see bad news on media and not good news?

People living in constant panic since five years. And panic is never a good advisor when thinking about complex issues. Think about this.

That is indeed a serious question. Because if you argue that we have to influence climate change through geoengineering, then there are obviously limits that humans put on the climate, within which limits it is allowed to change.

Who defines these limits? Is it allowed to get warmer? Is it allowed to get cooler? If so, how fast? Are the changes defined in a democratic decision-making process?

So please - what is your strategy then?

Ok, so you say the climate is not allowed to change anymore?

"But when you add them all together, you end up with a terribly laggy affair"

I think this is the key.

People fall in love with simple systems which solves a problem. Being totally in honey moon they want to use those systems for additional use cases. So they build stuff around it, atop of it, abstract the original system to allow growth for more complexity.

Then the system becomes too complex, so people might come up with a new idea. So they create a new simple system just to fix a part of the whole stack and allow migration from the old one. The party starts all over again.

But it's like hard drive fragmentation - at some point there are so many layers that it's basically impossible to recombine layers again. Everybody fears complexity already built.