That's a really good example about the dogs, and a useful phrase to know, as well. Thanks!

I would expect as much. Can anyone even make a good case for the existence of "Journals" -- as companies that get to sell access to research they didn't fund? I don't believe any scientists are getting rich off royalties from them, right?

They seem to me to be like a worse version of the record label racket. It seems like peer review itself should provide enough signal (drawing on the reputations of who decided to review it) to distinguish a Serious Paper that Really Matters from some slop fabricated by a conspiracy theorist in their basement. And surely the bandwidth costs etc. are so low as to be borne by the universities themselves, either by each of them self-hosting, or by funding a cooperative to host them all in one place. Or whatever Arxive is, of course.

The only problem with this is you have to go stand in the sunlight to charge it.

We were insured by Blue Shield when my wife was diagnosed with lung cancer. Every month they would deny some claims, once almost all of them. I filed grievances of course, but didn't see any payments on the denied claims I contested during the six months before she died. Then after she died they tried to say they owed nothing because she wasn't insured with them anymore. It was like climbing Everest without oxygen - a constant struggle to keep going after them, spending hours on the phone every month with no results.

During that time the doctors and hospitals had to be paid for her treatments and two surgeries. Essentially it was costing us an average of $20,000+ a month in unpaid claims. A few more months and we would be in trouble financially. Fortunately, a friend pf ours is a journalist with a national news company. She contacted Blue Shield asking some pointed questions on our behalf and that had some effect. I didn't get all the money I felt the insurance company owed but I did get about 60% eventually, in dribs and drabs over the months later.

I switched to Kaiser and I've had zero problems so far.

You probably made that comment as a joke, but if I had mod points I would certainly not mod this as 'Funny', but as 'Insightful'.

This.

And the actual damage of calling ppl communist or nazi when they are not, is that when an actual communist or nazi stands up, too few will be reacting to the real 'cry wolf' since they have been desensitized by all the false alarms.

You're on crack. Inded there is a Categories listing and there are a short (about three lines) descriptions of each item. I'm looking at it now. Maybe it's different if you are looking at the listings on a Mac (as I am) or something else, but that would make no sense.

Apple TV is much more than Ted Lasso. With TV shows like The Silo, Slow Horses, Shrinking, Foundation, Severance, plus movies like Killers of the Flower Moon, Argylle, Sharper, The Instigators, and Wolfs (just to name some each category that come to mind immediately) it really is a top notch channel.

Of all the channels we have, Apple TV is likely the last I would cancel.

As to a: probably. You will probably not fool most Bach-fans with generated Bach-like music. With the risk of being compared with someone who buys 1000$/meter speaker cable: AI 'Bach' just sounds ... weird. It 'feels wrong'. Bach seems too complex for AI. But for other types of music: I did hear some almost decent AI generated techno. Techno is a lot simpler than Bach, but even there the result sounded a bit far fetched for me.

I do think that most techno-heads could enjoy AI generated techno though. So for me the answer to your question would be a counter-question: is Bollywood music closer to Bach or to techno?

People have been saying that Nvidia will crash for about two years. But they haven't yet. They are sold out for 2024 and well on the way to being sold out for 2025 if you believe the analytical companies whose job is to forecast company performance for the market.

It's very possible they will crash, but I'm not selling until there's an indication that the competition is killing them or if companies stop buying their AI stuff. Until then I'm holding the 2k shares I bought at $4 (actually 200 bought at $40 way before the 10 for 1 split). Best $8k I have invested, I wish I had bought more.

Every time you write an API you are making an implicit statement about the API to others. The reason to write an API is to allow other pieces of code access to some feature or information, and when you change it you are liable to be breaking every piece of code that uses the API you created.

You should think carefully before creating an API about why you are writing it, and as far as possible future proof it from changes. Ts'o is saying that he expects to change to the API, and when he does he will not be responsible for fixing code that accesses his API. NOBODY is asking him to do that. All APIs should be fully documented, and when they change the docs should be updated and the fact that it changed should be noted in a release note somewhere.

Ts'o just doesn't want to document his APIs or be responsible for documenting changes. He may be a great coder, but he's a poor team member.

I've been programming in C/C++ for over 30 years and about a year ago I started learning Rust. Now I'm fluent in the language and idioms I feel that programming in C like languages is like watching a black & white TV while a color TV is available. Rust is definitely different enough to require a non-trivial learning curve, but it's an investment that I am happy that I made.

Languages are just tools, and I think Rust is a tool that is often superior to my C tool. No doubt C gets the job done, but the memory management in Rust is superior and is done at compile time so there's no run-time overhead. Depending on what you are coding that could be a non-issue or a huge improvement. But given a language choice, I will reach for my Rust compiler over my C compiler every time. Of course, all my legacy C code is still running and I would never think of rewriting working code just to change the language.

I think I understand why other people are less impressed. Rust offers nothing to an experienced, top notch C programmer who understands memory management well and is certain that he would never, ever access a piece of memory that another thread has already released. But it's nice that you don't have to worry about that and other memory issues. Many people dislike change and I understand that also, but I don't understand why people are so averse to another language to the point where they actively attempt to prevent its adoption.

In this case I side with: ridiculed. Does a hijacking or another action of bad faith depend on a pair of scissors from a shop? I doubt it. There are far more useful tools than scissors. And there are ways to get them onto an airport.
So the whole cost of this risk mitigation, including this false positive, is far worse than the cost of what it is mitigating.

Reminds me of that case where a team wrote a piece of software in a couple of months. That software automated 4 hours of relatively simple and easily verifyable manual work at years-end.

Mass media platforms and politicians... Ok. So off course there were scientific papers or articles in media outlets (respected by boffins) that showed the mass media and the politicians were wrong. Correct?

They were there, these articles? So you could reference them in an argument like this on /. for instance? Because without respectable science to back up your extraordinary claim, you run a high risk of simply looking like the town's fool here.