That's actually a good question. Inks have changed somewhat over the past 5,000 years, and there's no particular reason to think that tattoo inks have been equally mobile across this timeframe.

But now we come to a deeper point. Basically, tattoos (as I've always understand it) are surgically-engineered scars, with the scar tissue supposedly locking the ink in place. It's quite probable that my understanding is wrong - this isn't exactly an area I've really looked into in any depth, so the probability of me being right is rather slim. Nonetheless, if I had been correct, then you might well expect the stuff to stay there. Skin is highly permeable, but scar tissue less so. As long as the molecules exceed the size that can migrate, then you'd think it would be fine.

That it isn't fine shows that one or more of these ideas must be wrong.

Investment is a tricky one.

I'd say that learning how to learn is probably the single-most valuable part of any degree, and anything that has any business calling itself a degree will make this a key aspect. And that, alone, makes a degree a good investment, as most people simply don't know how. They don't know where to look, how to look, how to tell what's useful, how to connect disparate research into something that could be used in a specific application, etc.

The actual specifics tend to be less important, as degree courses are well-behind the cutting edge and are necessarily grossly simplified because it's still really only crude foundational knowledge at this point. Students at undergraduate level simply don't know enough to know the truly interesting stuff.

And this is where it gets tricky. Because an undergraduate 4-year degree is aimed at producing thinkers. Those who want to do just the truly depressingly stupid stuff can get away with the 2 year courses. You do 4 years if you are actually serious about understanding. And, in all honesty, very few companies want entry-level who are competent at the craft, they want people who are fast and mindless. Nobody puts in four years of network theory or (Valhalla forbid) statistics for the purpose of being mindless. Not unless the stats destroyed their brain - which, to be honest, does happen.

Humanities does not make things easier. There would be a LOT of benefit in technical documentation to be written by folk who had some sort of command of the language they were using. Half the time, I'd accept stuff written by people who are merely passing acquaintances of the language. Vague awareness of there being a language would sometimes be an improvement. But that requires that people take a 2x4 to the usual cultural bias that you cannot be good at STEM and arts at the same time. (It's a particularly odd cultural bias, too, given how much Leonardo is held in high esteem and how neoclassical universities are either top or near-top in every country.)

So, yes, I'll agree a lot of degrees are useless for gaining employment and a lot of degrees for actually doing the work, but the overlap between these two is vague at times.

The degree isn't about "getting a high-paid job", it's about knowing what the hell you're doing once you get a job. Although, fair enough, it's quite plausible that not many degrees would meet that standard either.

There is a possibility of a short-circuit causing an engine shutdown. Apparently, there is a known fault whereby a short can result in the FADEC "fail-safing" to engine shutdown, and this is one of the competing theories as the wiring apparently runs near a number of points in the aircraft with water (which is a really odd design choice).

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that (a) the wiring actually runs there (the wiring block diagrams are easy to find, but block diagrams don't show actual wiring paths), (b) that there is anything to indicate that water could reach such wiring in a way that could cause a short, or (c) that it actually did so. I don't have that kind of information.

All I can tell you, at this point, is that aviation experts are saying that a short at such a location would cause an engine shutdown and that Boeing was aware of this risk.

I will leave it to the experts to debate why they're using electrical signalling (it's slower than fibre, heavier than fibre, can corrode, and can short) and whether the FADEC fail-safes are all that safe or just plain stupid. For a start, they get paid to shout at each other, and they actually know what specifics to shout at each other about.

But, if the claims are remotely accurate, then there were a number of well-known flaws in the design and I'm sure Boeing will just love to answer questions on why these weren't addressed. The problem being, of course, is that none of us know which of said claims are indeed remotely accurate, and that makes it easy for air crash investigators to go easy on manufacturers.

It's far from indisputable. Indeed, it's hotly disputed within the aviation industry. That does NOT mean that it was a short-circuit (although that is a theory that is under investigation), it merely means that "indisputable" is not the correct term to use here. You can argue probabilities or reasonableness, but you CANNOT argue "indisputable" when specialists in the field in question say that it is, in fact, disputed.

If you were to argue that the most probable cause was manual, then I think I could accept that. If you were to argue that Occam's Razor required that this be considered H0 and therefore a theory that must be falsified before others are considered, I'd not be quite so comfortable but would accept that you've got to have some sort of rigorous methodology and that's probably the sensible one.

But "indisputable"? No, we are not at that stage yet. We might reach that stage, but we're not there yet.

Also, an AI "band" can't go on tour.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

If Vocaloid can do a concert, the team clearly can go on tour and do the event in different locations with their holograph tech to make them look 3D on stage.

It won't be the same as an acutal band, but it's still possible.

The last great recession was due to precisely this sort of spending pattern plus a collapse in payment. Banks may be healthy, for now, but they can't keep lending forever with no recover. This is not a good sign.

Free Software benefits from bug reports - eventually the software gets better.

Only the legitimate and quality ones.

The author of curl has been receiving a variety of reports that were generated by AI, none of which are legitimate. The latest one seems to involve a function that doesn't exist within curl, meaning he spent time tracking down a bug that didn't exist.

As for the Free and/or Open Source Software paradigm - it requires both "many eyes" and "many hands". Being able to spot problems doesn't mean a thing if there's nobody able to fix these problems.

Perhaps these requirements to drop DEI were not so much about DEI

X11Libre, a DEI-free fork of X11, needed to explain its DEI-free commitment: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FX11Libre%2Fmi...

And in doing so, the developer used the wrong "power-of-two" operator: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FX11Libre%2Fxs...

This fork was specifically created because the developer was thrown out of the parent project for pushing code that broke things too much, requiring a mass rollback.

It's only technically correct that a dropping DEI isn't related to DEI. Rather, it's an overt requirement to dislike people based off skin colour. This is consistent with the US's demands on French companies, and their policies that attempt to deport immigrants that don't look like americans.

but about savings and getting the job done.

Python is open source software. Anti-DEI policies run anti-ethical to it, simply because they take contributions from all over the world. Putting in policies that prohibit most of the world from contributing is much more costly, especially since labour is provided by unpaid volunteers - all of whom can decide to split off and create a new fully-compatible software package, "Vyper".

And, considering that "DEI" is the current code word for dark skinned people, I find this unlikely. If the government actually wanted savings and getting the job done, they can make provide efficiency benchmarks in the funding guidelines.

AI has problems for sure. Not a month goes by without news of yet another idiot lawyer getting sanctioned because of the hallucinations were presented as fact. However......have you tried coding with AI? I have. I'm 5x more productive than before, and I can solve problems now that I wouldn't have touched before. I still test my code. I still review it. But man, this thing is a game changer. I can see why people are paying big money for it. It absolutely is delivering.

To give you a recent example - I know nothing about terraform, but I had to implement a proof of concept in AWS and was mandated to use terraform. Previously, I would have spent some time understanding terraform concepts and then worked out some basic examples before attempting the task at hand. None of that was needed. I was coding from day 1. Yes, the AI can go wrong, but I find its never a syntactical error. When errors do occur, its usually a misunderstanding of the requirement I gave it, and because I know what I had in mind, I can always rephrase to get the right results. I have not so far encountered a situation in the coding realm where hallucinations caused me problems.

The other day, I asking the AI to do some task it noticed that I was using java 17 and offered me the upgrade to 21. I thought it was a trivial upgrade, but the implementation, when I said "yes", was breathtaking. It asked for me to sign into git, then created a branch, generated test cases for my code, after applying its changes, it ran the test cases, committed its changes, asked me for approval to merge to main and then did it.

Magnificient!

Yes, lesser number of programmers will be needed. What makes me most happy though is that this levels the playing field. No longer do I have to deal with those difficult prima donnas who are only tolerated because they are good developers, even though they mess with the team and make everyone elses life miserable. I can't wait for those people to get fired because there is no more excuse for them to be kept on.

Since they're claiming it's a Weather Balloon, it was really hit by Swamp Gas.

Source is the UFO identification chart..

One of the most fascinating aspects of H2O is the sheer number of forms it can take under different conditions.

More like a coder for a previous version of the Apple calculator app:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedailywtf.com%2Farticl...

Note how it drops button presses, meaning 1+2+3+4+5+6 = 75.

You shoehorn a claim with 21K vaccine deaths per month...

Come on, that's a 99.8% survival rate since those vaccines started. Vaccine denialists say that number is perfectly fine, being happy enough to plop the same number on the side of a protest sheep.

Let me know when this death rate approaches the older claims where everyone would die within 2 years of taking the vaccine.