Bolsonaro isn't the guy who got voting extended for a 2 hour window and then magically went from losing to winning during that exact period.
Votes aren't counted in real time, nor are they time stamped. No one lost or won in a 2 hour window.
Whatever it is, it is not the Guardian. I fail to see how Slashdot can quote the Guardian for anything. It is like quoting the National Enquirer.or the Onion
Of course. This is Slashdot. Questioning the messenger as a low-IQ ad hominem attack rather than debating the material (material which is often corroborated or has a primary citation) is just par for the course among the mouth breathers here.
First of all: you vote for a person. And not a party.
No, you vote for a position in alignment with you, not a person.
Secondly: in the first vote, you have more than TWO, you have perhaps a dozen, or more candidates.
Yes. That is my point. And in my example I mentioned THREE not two.
If in the first vote, one gets more than 50%, it is settled already.
Something which has absolutely no influence on the fact that 2-party run-off elections result in changing allegiances when all other players are not in the running.
And the voters who had voted for them have to reconsider who is the better candidate in the next round.
It is bottom line not a race between A and B, but a race about the losers: do they rather pick A or B, or skip the next round.
Yes, exactly what I said in my example.
Look if this were Slashdot.de I would have posted it in German and you may have understood it better, but it's an English site you need to put at least some effort into understanding what someone wrote before *checks notes* saying their explanation sucks and then proceeding to explain the same thing.
and putting GPL-licensed code into the public domain where it can be monetized by corporations without having to give anything back.
What part of the GPL prevents monetisation or demands a corporation give anything back? We literally have this right now, today. Well actually yesterday, long before AI copyright became a question. Corporations have mooched off the backs of open source since back when Stallman was still growing a beard. Nothing would change with the code were uncopyrightable because the GPL is as it stands an insanely permissive license as it is.
because Linus knows how to code and is careful
Linux is not Linus. The kernel team is full of highly talented careful maintainers and in most cases the contributors to the kernel produce truly excellent quality code and know what they are doing. To the point that an occasional rant about a bad contribution is actually newsworthy here.
There's more than one programmer in the world who knows what they are doing.
No, we have to accept AI because McKinzie tells our employers to tell us we have to. It literally is a question of food on your table.
but in the US it's going to replace humans.
The one group who currently disagree with you is the US Copyright Office. Here's a 41 page analysis by the people who assign copyright on how it may apply to AI: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.copyright.gov%2Fai%2FC...
41 pages worth, and that document is full of grey area. There is no clear cut way copyrightability an AI is going to play out. Many of the existing case law precedents don't apply. You need to understand that you are wrong. I am wrong. Anyone with an opinion that can be expressed in a short Slashdot post is currently wrong.
There will be books written about this topic, and years of legal debates with opposing rulings (we have already seen opposing rulings) before anyone can answer the question you are confidentially asserting the outcome of.
Except you can't. Turn your phone 90 degrees and post the result on Instagram, you'll notice that if the video was correctly aspect ratio adjusted it is now played back incorrectly.
Before criticising a generation as "idiots" it pays to understand the platform they are posting to, because god knows you would clearly fail at it. At least until Instagram finishes rolling out this feature.
Hint: no GenZ is producing content for your fat arse to watch on the computer screen. They are producing it for phones, while out and about, being held vertically like phones are. And the platforms restrict that aspect ratio as a result.
Learn something.
Instagram is not a photo sharing site. Restricting the aspect ratio has been a "feature" from the beginning.
Instagram has a "presence on TVs"? That's what the word expand means, that there is something there in the first place. Has anyone seen Instagram on a TV?
Yeah Firefox, why don't you bring back the good ol' days.
There isn't a filesystem that does RS or, really, any sort of single-device EC.
There's a reason for this:
a) the ATA spec has error correction to maintain data in flight.
b) single-devices (e.g. your HDD) has error correction as part of its normal operation.
You can see how well this works by looking up the SMART attributes for any HDD and reading:
195 - Hardware ECC Recovered
184 - End-to-End error / IOEDC (not all drives report this one)
and
204 - Soft ECC Correction
and when shit hits the fan you get:
187 - Reported Uncorrectable Errors
You don't need RAID anything. Reed-Solomon error-correcting codes are used on every drive compliant with the ATA specification. There's not a 1-1 relationship between bits on the platter, and storage capacity of a drive.
So yeah RAID-6 re-invented RAID-5, which reinvented the HDD that already existed, which reinvented the CD, which reinvented the mechanical tape... do you see how stupid the "literally re-invented" part of what you said actually is?
Then apply their internal ECC, before bad data could be supplied to ZFS.
Can you expand on how you think this is supposed to work? ECC is ECC. When it is read is irrelevant especially in the case of HDDs. An unrecoverable error is not blindly passed anywhere, it will be logged by the kernel which would throw an error, and logged in SMART attributes (and is virtually always a precursor to a drive failure). Recoverable errors are just logged in SMART, but do not get passed to the kernel. Critically reading from a HDD does not in any way give you info about its marginal status, nor does it cause a re-write. At best it may find and flag a bad sector (and that is also logged as a SMART attribute), but in general there's no degradation over time of a sector that isn't read on a HDD.
You don't need ZFS to know an unrecoverable error has occurred, and you don't benefit from ZFS when a recoverable one has occurred. Now the exception to this rule is SSDs which need to periodically read to maintain charge. But this was only a problem in the early days where our knowledge of NAND storage was poor, these days SSD controllers do this in the background for the entire drive whether you request the data to be read or not.
I've been using ZFS for decades too on multi TB systems (currently 48TB). I've seen zero correlation between scrubs and errors. I'm curious as to if there's something I've missed here from a technical perspective.
No, you're confusing backups, redundancy and error correction. The latter, ECC, is *always* stored locally and exists to address single unit errors. It's usually stored in a way that can be read as part of a sequential read operation as every read needs to be checked so having ECC information non-locally would lead to a huge performance cost.
The scenario here is bit flip or bad block or some in flight data corruption. Not a failure of a storage medium.
The life of a repo man is always intense.
