I don't know, I currently have a project running Go code in Python via Wasmtime and the experience with WASM is very shit. Headache is so bad, it almost would have been worth porting the entire Go tool to Python.

For every one typo the compiler catches in my library adapter Go code (already more annoying than Python which has excellent exceptions, hints, & no compile step just edit and rerun vs scrolling the nearly unreadable WASM build failure log)... there are literally 10x runtime errors from data inputs with somehow an even more useless stack-trace and error output. I just give up and rerun the inputs through the native Go. Seriously bad real-world dev experience.

Bingo. Yeah, background checks literally just search credit files/lexisNexis which in turn are just collections of cheap available lists.

Next most likely option, the h1b applied for a credit card using that address or gave it to their employer for payrole who then turned around and rented it out to ADT or anyone with two nickels to rub together that asked

Wait. Titanfall *had* a single-player mode?

I remember buying it new way back for 360, playing multiplayer for maybe a month (fun for sure, but pretty repetitive after two weeks or so), and then resold the disc for someone else to enjoy. Literally do not even remember seeing a 'story mode' menu option.

Among technical people many, if not most did choose. Chrome launched during a period when Firefox had stumbled and started to bloat with features and memory usage. It started with tech folk intentionally using chrome for personal browsing until mindshare was so great around maybe 2012 that people stopped testing web content on Firefox and just built things for chrome.

Because microsoft functionally had a monopoly on the OS used on essentially every single citizen's computer at the time and was convicted in court of the same.

If Google's functional monopoly on ad sales and search is as bad (OS is viewed as more difficult for a citizen to 'switch' from, vs browser or web search engine less so) is still up for debate.

Because copyright law. If someone gives you their copywritten item you abide the terms of their licensing, else forfeit right to their work (subject to fair-use). If you do not have any right to a work (or have lost a previously granted right), you certainly cannot create modified versions to distribute to further parties.

AGPLv3 the license does not protect itself .. it protects the use of some other creative work.

Yeah I agree. These defendants really need a lawyer. Crucially, Neo4j corp did not receive AGPLv3 licensed code from someone else and then try to relicense that. Instead Neo4j holds copyright on entire project & has been very careful to require any contributors sign a Contributor License Agreement that doesnt assign copyright to the corp, but does establish 'joint' copyright.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fneo4j.com%2Fdeveloper%2Fcl... They even have a special revised CLA for IBM employees to sign before sending in PRs https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdev.assets.neo4j.com%2Fw...

Indeed, as you say, by holding full copyright they can dual license or freely relicense new versions of the project at-will. If anything, these forkers should be going after any weaknesses in that CLA and contesting if neo4j really can do whatever they want with only joint copyright (assuming the forkers are also contributors). Otherwise they should respect the copyright holder and only build their forks off the AGPLv3 Neo4j Community Edition, any features they added themselves, and not appropriate any of these non-free "Enterprise Edition" code releases.

Um, did you even read that link? It says US wanted peace negotiation, Trump mouthpiece wanted victory through war.

Seriously amazing. Link clearly spells out that US thought peace was not being negotiated realistically (Demanding Putin step down) and so US encouraged that condition to be dropped so fighting would not continue & negotiation could succeed.
It then ends with a Trump spokesperson (get this: uneducated, unrealistic and inconsistent), claiming US is wrong to push for better negotiation and should only push to win through military victory.

Amazing how Musk and team trip and stumble in thrashing confusion, over a table of data Senator Ron Johnson explained coherently and easily ten years ago in one paragraph. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronjohnson.senate....

You really don't get it, think for 30 seconds about things that have been true for 50+ years before posting.

1. The CIA is a weapon.
2. The CIA is never to be trusted.

Doesn't matter who the president is

Bad example, IT contracting is labor intensive because it's *easy* to arrange data however you dream up inside the commodity hardware you buy.

US Postal service in my state *does* deliver mail via an ad hoc mix of commercial minivans, dodge step-vans, and the antique Grumman trucks. The entire point of the Next Gen delivery vehicle was because they know that the commercial vans are not good fit for mail delivery from hands-on-experience with the limitations. So the government tasked several government specialist contractors to create new non-commodity hardware that would work as an effective mobile-workplace with visibility unavailable in an off-the-shelf vehicle.

I'm sorry, how does a fire truck get 'stopped' at a US state border? Who stopped it?

I see Reuters reporting California officials stating SMOG and emissions checks were intentionally skipped for donated or loaned out of state vehicles. Another statement saying zero vehicles were sent back or went unused, and Oregon fire officials confirming all fire trucks they sent to California were accepted and fielded.

Intel leadership eyes-open recognizes how much their fab and design capabilities took to build over the years, and I don't think they would sell at any price. They have the cash to wait and the long history to believe they can wait out what they see as a temporary blip.

They may be delusional, but consider how IBM is still hanging around. I think Intel thinks that in 10-15 years this uninformed AI craze will have died down, Broadcom and Nvidia valuations will be back where they were before and Intel will be at worst a confidently stumbling along do-nothing soaking up consulting and government projects like IBM. And honestly I think they're right. They'd be stupid to sell now for even 170 billion, if there's a near 100% chance they can bring in 50+ billion each year for another 15+ years.

If this lowers prices to 20/mo but forces a 200mbps speed cap (or provides a cheap 25mbps option for next-to-nothing) it would still be worth it if it give networks an incentive to actually deliver at least 1gig modern internet speeds to those willing to pay for it.

I pay 50usd for "5g" fixed wireless broadband in a major US metro area (not AT&T or NY, obviously). Speed peaked once at 340mbps but connection was super unreliable. After support 'switched me to a different tower' stability is at least better than their Nokia 5g modem's stability but speeds in realistic usage is never any better than 85mbps down / 50 mbps up... I'd gladly pay less for mediocre connection, enjoy an even more universally accessible 25mbps plan, or pay 50usd+ for actual modern speed. Sounds like an overall healthier environment vs competition to increase fees to deliver the most minimal service can get away with

Looks like there is a Red Hat logo on the side of the cabinet.

I'm sure there are some customizations on the main boards and things running in userspace, etc. but these days 'Cray' supercomputers appear to run straight RHEL, with untainted kernels and commodity accelerated NICs.

(Cray systems, listed in the middle) https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hpe.com%2Fus%2Fen%2Fcoll...