I feel like I'm missing something here. Production should be in equilibrium with consumption, but they are measured by monetary value not time. Your (Rp) is a function of skill and organisation with hours applied. The time part is the easiest to change, or rather production is most quickly improved by increasing time.

But (Rc) is very easily increased and almost independent of time. I don't need 8 hours to consume 8 hours worth of production. It takes less time to buy a new $60,000 Tesla online than buy a $5,000 second-hand Toyota. I can even consume half a lifetime of production in a couple of days by buying a house.

I'm not so sure about this. LLMs are a linguistic approach, and novel problems are described using existing words, phrases and concepts. The solution to a novel problem may be contained in the structure and patterns of the existing billions of sentences and lines of code humanity has produced, without needing formal reasoning.

Isn't that the physical equivalent of Cloudfare? It's proving the grandparent's statement about street design.

Many of the test emails include a specific header value, so you can set up an Outlook rule to delete any emails containing, for example, header value X-PHISHTEST.

The only change they should be making to the taskbar is re-enabling the ability to place it horizontally on the left or right.

Spoiler: all winning entries this year were just snippets of Github Copilot generations.

It's not valid to test well-being when keeping the same pay for less work, unless you like stating the bleeding obvious.

Were a 4-day week applied globally there would certainly not be enough productivity to do this. Some jobs would stay over 80% productive, a very small amount of high-stress jobs may even increase in output. But many would be less than 80% since the overhead tasks remain the same.

It's also invalid to test dropping pay to 80%. That would create a lot of stress on the test subjects, but were it applied globally it could be unnoticed. Major items like housing affordability would probably stay the same, keeping up with the Jones looks the same, and we wouldn't notice to mourn the slower advance in technology and living standards.

I'm interested that Ubuntu Core beats out the mainline Ubuntu. A quick search doesn't reveal any device people would be Steam gaming on in this way.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenra.net%2F

Have a look at https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fopenra.net.%2F Runs natively on Linux with mono, but they package it into an AppImage.

Thanks, makes sense. Similar to openra.net, who reimplemented in .NET (including RA2), but of course requiring the original assets. Fortunately I've bought this game about three times over the years!

From the compilation instructions: To use the compiled binaries, you must own the game. The C&C Ultimate Collection is available for purchase on EA App or Steam.

Not au fait with GPL, but it talks about 'conveying' object forms, not running. Are EA not truly open-sourcing, or are they just talking about the assets?

Right, maybe it doesn't explain it. Note the Linux covenant is a relatively new change, replacing the original "expect criticism but you shouldn't be threatened" with the "protected class" identifiers, and did receive some of the same criticsm. Why do you think Rust gets singled out for this, simple social media irrationality?

It probably stems from the Rust code of conduct. The first item is about gender/sexuality etc. so places itself firmly in the political realm. That said, Go and Zig are similar, but maybe came later so didn't capture the social media reaction frenzy in the same way.

Ultimately Rust is a programming language. You certainly need mores around the community that uses a language, but there seems no need to discuss politics and I'd expect the forums to be 99% technical topics.

It's a slightly different case. There is no ambiguity in code* because we have a perfect judge/interpreter in the compiler**. You can write code that is more or less difficult to understand and modify by another coder (lawyer), but the code will mean one specific thing. The parallel is that both code and a legal document are 'better' when they achieve the goal of correct meaning with greater simplicity. Also complicated code/legal runs the risk of a loophole not achieving correct meaning, but it may be necessary to close a loophole/edge case.

* ignoring undefined behaviour
** ignoring compiler bugs