sddfd

Some companies have a commit queue that takes care of actually merging a PR as part of their CI that mitigates this problem.

The article mentions the key problems:

- once private information is leaked, it can never be undone - being treated differently by some party because that party had knowledge of private information about you is difficult to prove

The ultimate solution is to legally require that important services cannot depend on private information.

An example would be: define a set of properties health insurance cost is allowed to depend on, and then have health insurance providers publish their formula for the premium (that can only depend on that set of properties).

The western economic system cannot deal with lockdowns, and more generally, any kind of stop-the-world scenarios.

What will be most important now is how the west will be able to deal with this crisis in comparison to China.

If the Chinese system is able to deal with the crisis more effectively in economic terms, this may put the western system as a whole in jeopardy, in particular values like freedom and privacy.

I feel uncomfortable at the ubiquitous, silent assumption that what is marketed as AI is a computer implementation of a brain.

I see how the term neuronal network reinforces this believe, but we (especially the researchers among us) should allow for the possibility that we are missing something.

I've followed Bitcoin for a while. What seemed to happens there was the deliberate manipulation of the price using all means available (ads, etc.) The result was a few winning big.

I have no reason to believe the same doesn't happen on the real stock market.

Oh I love the idea that you need to pay to leave a review. This way it becomes harder to fake a large number of reviews.

Could someone explain what this means? I read it as proof that quantum computers cannot compute more functions than Turing machines, is that correct?

This is why the world is acting so sluggishly to climate change.

Tldr: privately funded research is not working.

I don't understand why antibiotics research can't be done at (publicly funded) universities?

The German voter is against coal (the young climate concious), against nuclear (the old green party supporters), against wind (everyone when it appears in their backyard), and the government killed solar in 2015 which resulted in approximately 80000 lost jobs.

What the German voter doesn't want is to consume less and/or save energy.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Let's also talk about why LTS is a dangerous idea: It provides an excuse not to update.

Many tech debt traps start with relying on an LTS version of OS or libraries. The philosophy behin that is, that software behaves like a chair: You buy it once, and then you sit can sit on it until it is no longer needed.

A much better analogy is a horse: You need to feed and take care of it daily, and you need to be ready for it do die when you still need it.

That is not the only way technical debt gets introduced.

Often, teams cut corners to release a feature earlier/on time, and only make it work for the MVP use case without restructuring the codebase to fully accommodate the change. In this setting the term debt is pretty fitting.

Suárez' work also develops a utopian/dystopian (you decide) vision of society, which is an aspect of science fiction I really enjoy.

Jetstream, and even octane, are not relevant for most users.

JavaScript performance is good enough and has been for quite some time. (Server side node is another story)

If a website is slow, it is mostly because the website is shipping too much crap at the wrong time.

The US sanctions and the effect on Huawei just made it very easy for Chinese companies to justify expenses that increase technological independence, on all levels (not only hardware).

That is what I would have thought, but apparently the controllers at Boeing thought otherwise.

I don't have a problem with the requirements. I'm just saying that if passing the requirements is so time-consuming and expensive that companies start cutting corners to get around the approval process, the approval process just became worthless.

I'm pretty sure the requirements are fine, but the process is not streamlined and hence avoided whenever possible.

It is not pilot training. The root problem is that Boeing and Airbus are currently retrofitting larger engines into old airframes at the cost of pitch stability, when what they should be doing if safety was their primary concern is change the airframe to accommodate the larger engines.

Boeing in particular was under pressure from the more fuel efficient Airbus A320neo, and they needed bigger engines (larger fans) to compete on fuel efficiency. Those large engines don't fit under the 737 airframe, but getting a new airframe approved is time-consuming. So Boeing placed the bigger engines more forward from the wing, resulting in flight instability and pitch-up.

Boeing tried to fix that problem with software, but, as became apparent recently, weren't very successful with it.

No, they don't. New variants enter the market, such as the 737 MAX, which are easier to certify.

Boeing introduced the last new airframe for commercial passenger transport on 2009 (the 787). Before that, it introduced the 747 in 1994.

Which new airframes that enter the market all the time are you talking about?

The elephant in the room is that we made requirements for getting a completely new plain design into the market so expensive and time-consuming, that Boeing cut corners and reused an existing design to get around the process.

This is great! Many dev hours are spend waiting for the compiler, every second counts!

The second order effects are even worse. After a minute, the programmer will start thinking about other things, running flow.

If compiles regularly take 5min, devs will leave their desks (and honestly, who can blame them for it).

That is all fine and good, but is it necessary at all (even if some people are willing to pay for it).

In before "genetically modified microbes induce auto immune disease in cancer patients".

2050 is way too late. Also the discussion doesn't only need to be carbon neutral, but it must be about how to get carbon negative.

I hope that the US get behind this ASAP as well, and that China and India follow.

I think it is clear that electric is the future, mostly because of better energy efficiency, simpler manufacturing, and falling battery prices.

What I don't know is how quickly this future will come, and whether CNG/LNG (to which engines of cars already in use can easily be converted) is the right thing for the next 10 years until electric vehicles are cheap, and charging and range aren't a problem anymore.

LNG/CNG burns much cleaner than diesel/gas and it is easier to refill than to recharge. As bonus, refitted engines retain the ability to run on gas if needed.

I thought Tetris was pretty easy for a computer to play: to decide where to put the next piece, just maximize flatness of the surface while penalizing holes.

I'm hence surprised about the hardness of approximation result.

The city of Munich tried to develop a Linux distribution "Limux" that was used for some time, but political considerations ultimately reversed the decision.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux

What is the problem with nipples? I thought it was about porn.

The real problem is that our current economic system cannot deal with climate change.

In our current system resource depletion is not priced-in. We are producing thousands of tons of goods that are pure crap, not fit for any purpose. The only goal is to increase a dollar number on a balance sheet.

We need to change the system to make it plain that this is nonsensical behavior. The most important step is to put a price on resource depletion and environment impact.

How is this different from lit-html?

https://github.com/Polymer/lit-html