Shovel vendors scrambling for solid ground as prospectors start to understand geology.

...that is, this isn't yet the end of the AI bubble. It's just the end of overvaluing hardware because efficiency increased on the software side, there's still a whole software-side bubble to contend with.

The cost for one night of defence seen as significantly higher than the price Iran paid to mount its attack

That looks like it's exactly the point. Israel hitting the Iranian embassy wasn't extreme enough for Iran to seriously escalate, yet you can't just leave such a thing unanswered or they'll do it again and again, you also don't want to draw (additional) ire to yourself, meaning you don't want to have any casualties, at least not indiscriminate ones, at the most you want to give people a scare. So you shoot a couple of volleys you know Israel can intercept, maximising not for anything getting through but interception costing them a pretty penny. Now, the next time the IDF considers such a strike some politician somewhere is going to say "we don't have a billion dollars to spare right now for that BS, cut it out".

No worries, it has been towed outside of the environment.

For the curious, this is about as easy as it gets for proper type inference. You could leave out the one or other thing (most prominently, polymorphism), but that kind of stuff would hardly qualify as even a toy example.

I won't claim that J. Random Hacker will have issues understanding it -- it's a neatly tied bundle of necessary complexity without any distracting parts (like efficiency), if you sit down with the thing (ideally starting the whole series from the beginning) you'll be able to grok it (and have learned a lot). However, understanding HM isn't the same as being able to extend it, which includes proving soundness of the system, that kind of stuff is a specialised field within a specialised field within academia with more open questions than answered ones. The reason Rust doesn't have HKTs? Because their interaction with lifetimes is insufficiently understood. Those kinds of questions can easily start 20+ years of research only to be answered with "yep that's inherently unsound/uncomputable/whatever".

Oh, EDIT, forgot: AI-enabled typing is obviously a completely braindead idea. I don't need a second lazy, impatient, hubristic idiot looking at my code, I need something to catch mistakes. Something deterministic, rule-based, pure unerring logic. Which is exactly what type systems are and do.

Unless you are advocating for a Communist regime along the lines of the Soviet Union or Maoist China, you aren’t really “far left”.

If you do that you definitely aren't, authoritarianism and far-left are mutually exclusive.

Council communists and Anarchists generally qualify for far-left status. (Or, differently put, council communism is methadone therapy for Marxists who don't yet dare make the jump to syndicalism).

VESA Adaptive-Sync goes back to the eDP stardard, 2009. AMD simply took that and said "Hey why aren't we doing that over external DisplayPort". And they did.

So instead of over-engineering a solution that nobody asked for to create vendor lock-in nobody (but fanboys with Stockholm Syndrome) want they exposed functionality that many many panels already had, anyway, because manufactures don't use completely different control circuitry for laptop (eDP) and stand-alone monitors.

And, no, nvidia's tech is not superior. From what I gather they have stricter certification requirements but that's it.

Not in any way a new phenomenon, there's a reason fizzbuzz was invented, there's been a steady stream of CS graduates who can't code their way out of a wet paper bag ever since the profession hit the mainstream.

Actually fucking interview your candidates, especially if you're sourcing candidates from a country with for-profit education and/or rote learning cultures, both of which suck when it comes to failing people who didn't learn anything. No BS coding tests go for "explain this code to me" kind of stuff, worst case they can understand code but suck at producing it, that's still prime QA material right there.

There's generally rules of the "have to be on HRT for X months" kind which is perfectly sensible: Your body doesn't change the second you come out, or decide to swallow pills.

Then, all the data we have says that middling athletes stay middling after transitioning, bad ones stay bad and great ones stay great, that's enough for fairness given that we don't disqualify Michael Phelps for being half fish. All those genetic advantages he has would carry over if he were to transition and he'd dominate the female league not because he transitioned but because he's a genetic freak.

If you think that people transition just to have an advantage I don't know what to tell you either. I'll believe it when I see Matt Walsh do it, on camera, under doctor's supervision. If that clown with all his hatred can't do it with ideological fuel then noone can.

Somehow I have the feeling that this is not going to convince people who think that 0.9999... /= 1, but only make them madder.

Personally I like to point to the difference, or rather non-difference, between 0.333... and ⅓, then ask them what multiplying each by 3 is.

The problem isn't GMO, the problem is the type of changes big agritech is making.

Take, e.g. Clearfield Rapeseed: It's a herbicide-resistant strain, non-GMO, bred by BASF, and resistant against Clearfield, another BASF product. Thing is: Rapeseed is a brassicaceae, and they really like to exchange genes cross-species. There's tons of wild plants ("weeds") that are brassicaceae, in fact if you don't happen to be growing it rapeseed itself is a rather nasty weed. Which means that once that resistance is out there that stuff can't be killed by stuff that doesn't kill literally everything. Brassicaecae seeds can also stay dormant in the soil for years, making it even more nasty.

My state's agricultural ministry got wind of the stuff, quickly decided "that's insane we need to outlaw it", then quickly hit their head against the EU legislation which doesn't distinguish by impact on nature or environment or economy, but by GMO status. Instead they then flooded farmers with brochures telling them just in how much shit they would be should that stuff escape from their fields and other farmers demand compensation for loss of income etc.

The thing is: That stuff doesn't even make sense for BASF. "Sell resistant strain and a herbicide along with it" makes a lot of sense for chemical companies (and all big agritech are chemical companies), "spread that resistance throughout the whole environment" doesn't because who's going to buy their herbicide when it becomes ineffective. They really dropped the ball on that one, failed ecology 101.

Speaking of "we've got a hammer, where are the nails": Golden rice. The problem isn't that rice doesn't contain carotene, the problem is that there's people so piss-poor they can't afford half a carrot, onion, some garlic, and a spoon of beans with their bowl of rice. If you want a solution that is the problem to fix.

This is the kind of stuff actually modern agritech comes up with, problem being: It's not a thing you can earn money with as a company as there's no products to sell, definitely none you have a monopoly on, so those companies have literally zero incentive to research that kind of thing. Farmers don't have the funds (even in the west, they're getting squeezed by supermarkets and Nestle etc), but you know what, states already have universities. Give them a couple of fields to mess around with and you'll be surprised by what they come up with.

After reading through the abstract the article is pop sci bunk: They developed a method to save additional space with constant-time overhead.

Which is certainly novel and nice and all kinds of things but it's just a tool in the toolbox, making things more optimal in theory says little about things being faster in practice because the theoretical cost models never match what real-world machines are actually doing. In algorithm classes we learn to analyse sorting algorithms by number of comparisons, and indeed the minimum necessary is O(n log n), in the real world, it's numbers of cache invalidation that matters: CPUs can compare numbers basically instantly, getting the stuff you want to compare from memory to the CPU is where time is spent. It can very well be faster to make more comparisons if it means you get fewer, or more regular (so that the CPU can predict and pre-fetch), data transfers.

Consulting my crystal ball, I see this trickling down into at least the minds of people who develop the usual KV stores, database engineers, etc, maybe it'll help maybe it won't those things are already incredibly optimized. Never trust a data structure optimisation you didn't benchmark. Never trust any optimisation you didn't benchmark, actually. Do your benchmarks, you're not smarter than reality. In case it does help, it's going to trickle down into standard implementations of data structures languages ship with.

EDIT: I was looking an this paper, not this. It's actually disproving a conjecture of Yao, who has a Turing prize, certainly a nice feather to have in your cap. It's also way more into the theoretical weeds than I'm comfortable with. This may have applications, or this may go along the lines of the Karatsuba algorithm: Faster only if your data is astronomically large, for (most) real-world applications the constant overhead out-weighs the asymptotic speedup.

How about we introduce export tariffs on eggs instead.

It can't, municipalities and states can, and the EU law allowing for this requires showing they're a threat to public safety (which is why it's not a federal matter the federation doesn't do public safety). The Berlin state government wants to expel some people, so far no other state has made similar moves, and it's very questionable whether Berlin courts will let them do it. And then there's federal courts. And then the ECJ.

Good ones still last a long time. What fails is generally not the LED itself but the cheap-ass rectifier in a cheap-ass case that is optimised for production price instead of heat dissipation. The fixture can also be an issue as nobody designed for heat dissipation in the days of incandescent bulbs, you might be baking those poor capacitors.

And those kinds of bulbs will stay available because there's plenty of commercial users doing their due diligence on life-time costs. Washing machines, fridges? Yes, those too, though commercial ones aren't necessarily cheap. Want a solid pair of pants? Ask a construction crew what they're wearing.

And here we have a typical specimen exhibiting capitalist realism: Observe how the subject is analysing everything they come across on a "who works for who" basis, projecting human modes of production onto the universe. Applying it, even in vain, this reductive universality ensures that they will never think beyond it and, not thinking beyond it, not question either working for a capitalist or being a capitalist who is worked for, thereby in either case working for capitalism, a form of human cooperation in which happiness, well-being, yes even human connection (that necessitating eye-level communication) is traded for hastened advancement of the economy to achieve post-scarcity.

As a Level 3 system, the driver is permitted to take their hands off the wheel, their feet off the pedals, and divert their attention away from the road. [...]

The turquoise markers will alert other drivers to the fact that your vehicle is driving itself, so hopefully they won't be alarmed if they see you doing other things while behind the wheel.

"Genital mutilation doesn't matter because men can't be victims" is what I read there. Get the fuck out of here with that sexist bullshit.

It probably is. In the EU APIs aren't copyrightable in the first place, doubly so if it's necessary for interoperability, in the US there's Google vs. Oracle which declared Google's use of Java APIs in Android fair use.

cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage and kale, of all things.

It’s not entirely unwarranted, they WERE planning to work on a tourist-visa

[citation needed]

They said they wanted to travel spontaneously. That is, they had their first hotel booked, then would've booked another hotel, or left the states early.

Maybe Americans just don't understand travel that's not an organised five-day trip.