It's a black hole, the diameter is 0. You can safely assume it's mass.

EDIT: Yes, people who are wrong all the time, I know some report the diameter as being whatever the diameter of the event horizon or Schwarzschild boundary is, but scientists don't, that's not actually the diameter, they'll tell you the event horizon or Schwarzschild boundary diameter if you ask, but they won't claim it's the diameter of the black hole, so shush.)

EDIT2: Yes, I also know it's generally the "Schwarzschild *radius*", but "the diameter of the Schwarzschild radius" just looks bad to me. Again, shush.)

EDIT3: Yes, I know Slashdot doesn't have an edit button... or does it? Could I be testing a hidden feature? Maybe I'm a beta tester for a revision of Slashcode? Or maybe I just right clicked, inspect element, found the edit button, and removed the style="display: none;" tag on it? You'll never know.

> I think you underestimate how far the country has moved and how quickly. You underestimate the degree to which sexism is a thing of the past and you underestimate how accustomed to a total lack of professionalism in governance we BOTH the first Trump administration and the following Biden Clown show complete with its klepto-cross-dressers had made us.

I think you're trying desperately to pretend the world is something different to what it is because he's right and you're wrong.

Sexism is not a thing of the past. And I've literally heard people say they were voting for Trump because they didn't think the country was "ready" for a female president. On top of that, after decades of the country moving towards equal rights, we now have a regime that many Gen Z men literally voted for because they were told women had too much power and needed to be taken down a peg. Sexism, homophobia, and racism have been so obviously coming back as major movements I'm surprised anyone with a straight face would claim that sexism is a thing of the past.

As for your complaints about Clinton and Harris, both were highly qualified for the job, and as unlikeable as Clinton might have been, how could she possibly be considered less likeable than Trump?

You know who enshittified recipe sites?

Google did.

Google is why most contain a massive story about how the author once baked this delicious recipe based on Deliah Smith's method while on vacation in Tahiti using only the freshest oak leaves and... {continued for another mile of scrollable text}. Because real recipes are short, it became impossible to get any traffic at all with a straightforward "Here's roughly what it tastes like, here's how you make it" site. There was no reason for Google to do this, beyond seeing that some sites would be more valuable to end users if they had a lot of shit on them, despite the fact anyone with half a brain can tell that that's not going to be true for all types of website. I believe this all started around 2010 or so, when Google started going to shit.

And before you complain that recipe writers shouldn't care about traffic, what the fuck's the point of going to the trouble of sharing a recipe online if nobody is going to read it? A reminder too that LLMs are going to destroy the web because nobody's going to put up websites any more for anything but commerce and advertising.

Note also that most recipe websites these days do actually have both a "Print" and "Jump to recipe" button at the top of their pages. They know you're not interested in the stupid inane story. They're embarrassed to have to put that shit up. And ultimately the recipe is still there, so they're not completely enshittified. I still find them useful.

This is a silly comment. No language is going to help you when you turn off the features that make it helpful. But the fact a language CAN help will obviously reduce the problems you have.

It's not as if all code in the kernel needs to be unsafe. Most of the complex code in the kernel - networking protocols, file systems, USB handlers, etc, can be 100% safe as none of it needs direct access to hardware or memory. It's only the hardware access, IPC, scheduler, etc that needs to be unsafe, and even then not all of the code implementing that, just small chunks that need to do specific things.

The bigger issue with the unsafe keyword in Rust is that you're not discouraged from using it unnecessarily, and there's an unfortunate attitude within the Rust community that it's entirely OK to use it to try to get 5% more speed or whatever. But Torvalds is free to impose a "No unnecessary use of "unsafe"" mandate, and probably should. (And the Rust language folks need to understand that some of their policies, including this one, undermines the entire idea of Rust in the first place. Safety should come first.)

I'm not a fan of the unsafe keyword and Rust's rather over-relaxed attitude towards it (I feel alarm bells should be ringing when it's used and when you drag in a crate that uses it), but there's a world of difference between C where everything could be unsafe, and a language where you have to explicitly say "Wait, this bit, this code that's going to remap a memory segment or bit bang a cheap serial port input, needs to be unsafe, so I'll wrap this tiny bit of code in an unsafe block, and audit it as well as I can, while taking advantage of Rust being able to detect issues in the rest of the program."

I'm inclined to think Rust is being used mostly in the wrong places at the moment. Kernel development is actually a great place for it, because you can do these kinds of mixes of code, while a more unsafe-hostile language should be being used for the video games and (largely pointless) rewrites of command line tools. Especially given the unaudited crates.io crap and risks it brings.

Google is not the alternative. Unfortunately the alternative, selecting systems where your data isn't in the hands of third parties, is intentionally being made hard, and people don't want to do it.

I've actually heard Isaacman is considered a "not terrible" choice within NASA itself. Phil Plait sounded fairly surprised and cautiously optimistic when writing about him earlier this year: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbadastronomy.beehiiv.c...

His nomination originally was apparently derailed because Musk supported him, and Trump finally got tired of Musk. So it wasn't due to merit. And much as I think Musk is awful, I don't see Musk supporting someone to be head of NASA as a disqualification, it seems to be the one agency Musk wants to see do well, even if Musk also wants to suck money out of it to fund his own company.

I think "wait and see" is justified here.

Boots on the ground already happened about 55 years ago, there is zero point in a moon mission to merely put boots on the ground.

As an aside, this documovie is awesome and everyone here should find the time to watch it at some point: you can get it on various streaming platforms, and it's also available on Blu-ray: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

+1 for Forgejo. Small and efficient and likely to be everything you need - yes, there are CI/CD use cases that it doesn't work with, so it might not be what you need, but 99% of people and orgs will find it is just fine.

Gitlab isn't bad - it's more advanced in places than Forgejo, but also a memory hog - but Gitlab's maintainers are giving off serious enshittification-is-just-around-the-corner vibes right now. The mandatory AI account (I forget the name) even on self hosted instances would be one example. Why is it necessary if the AI features are "optional" and "disabled"?

Forgejo is a fork of Gitea when it started giving off the same vibes. Thankfully Gitea didn't go that way - possibly because of the fork - but most of the mindshare is with Forgejo now anyway.

Either way, there are self hostable options that aren't Github. I'm surprised Gitlab didn't see a mass exodus when they became the source for Microsoft's LLM-assisted-coding efforts. But really, now, even if you don't want to self host, there are plenty of third parties who use that platform, and honestly, you should be looking into self hosting anyway.

How does putting it underground mean less heat? It gets hotter the lower you go, and on top of that the problem is heat generated by the servers themselves - where's it supposed to go in a room that's that well insulated?

If you'd had suggested building them atop mountains, you might have been on to something, but those places are typically hard to reach and thus construct upon, and you'd also still need to power them and, of course, connect them to the Internet.

I saw a video complaining they did just that. The problem was that the power plant was a bunch of mobile gas-powered generators and it played havoc with people living nearby, noise and air pollution.

If they'd declared it up front, it'd have been less of an issue, because they'd have been forced to build a little further from the city and probably given clean air mandates to adhere to. But Musk is cheap and figured out he could bypass that by pretending it was just a data center, and then bringing in mobile generators after the data center was built.

Maybe wind and solar mandates would work. And if anyone says "But the wind doesn't always blow" (spoiler, it almost never doesn't, but let's pretend to take that argument seriously especially as it does apply to solar) there's this guy that's in the big-ass battery industry who might be able to help.

His name? Elon Musk.

The more I think about, the more I suspect that's what she means. I mean, not everyone who works for MI-6 understands Russian, right? I assume the qualifications for working there are a little more varied given Russia is not the only country they have to deal with, and just because someone's fluent in Russian doesn't make them generically helpful.

What I suspect she's saying is she wants the company organizationally more fluent in these things, not all individuals who work there.

Very few people will benefit, given it's limited to whoever bought an iPhone in a specific month before the policy change took effect. Everyone before that had 2 months of service, everyone after it can't sue.

> Section 230 protects people and organizations who run websites which allow the public to post content to them without approval from prosecution, so long as they comply with certain legal requirements like declaring your point of contact for having material which remains unlawful removed, which in turn requires that you pay a yearly fee. (This requirement is not part of section 230, it was instituted later.)

This is complete bullshit.

Section 230 covers websites, but it also covers everything else. It is absolutely not necessary to register your website or put contact details on it for S.230 purposes. Perhaps you're confusing it with the DMCA, an entirely different law?

Section 230 covers everything. Web. Email. IRC. Usenet. Individual IP packets. etc. Nobody is responsible for the actions of a third party, period (except copyright infringement which is covered by the DMCA) no matter what the medium.

Which is as it should be.

I would assume he is given he described exactly what happened when he tried to not set up a Wi-Fi connection.