There are indirect benefits to visitors, though. Yes, most people are a drain on resources because they visit strictly to read and never to contribute. The minority that do contribute, though, are presumably people who used Wikipedia and liked it, or people who enjoy knowing that other people are benefiting from their contributions. I’m not sure people will donate or edit on Wikipedia if they believe no one is using it.

There’s no reason to be rude and insulting. It doesn’t make the other person look lazy; it just makes you look bad, especially when you end up being wrong because you didn’t do any research either. The article is garbage. It’s obviously written by someone who wants to talk about why they don’t like bcachefs, which would be fine, but they make it look like that’s why Linus wanted to remove bcachefs, which is a blatant lie.

Despite this, it has become clear that BcacheFS is rather unstable, with frequent and extensive patches being submitted to the point where [Linus Torvalds] in August of last year pushed back against it, as well as expressing regret for merging BcacheFS into mainline Linux.

But if we click on the article’s own source in the quote we see the message (emphasis mine):

Yeah, no, enough is enough. The last pull was already big.

This is too big, it touches non-bcachefs stuff, and it’s not even remotely some kind of regression.

At some point “fix something” just turns into development, and this is that point.

Nobody sane uses bcachefs and expects it to be stable, so every single user is an experimental site.

The bcachefs patches have become these kinds of "lots of development during the release cycles rather than before it", to the point where I’m starting to regret merging bcachefs.

If bcachefs can’t work sanely within the normal upstream kernel release schedule, maybe it shouldn’t be in the normal upstream kernel.

This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Stability has absolutely nothing to do with it. On the contrary, bcachefs is explicitly expected to be unstable. The entire thing is about the developer, Kent Overstreet, refusing to follow the linux development schedule and pushing features during a period where strictly bug fixes are allowed. This point is reiterated in the rest of the thread if anyone is having doubts about whether it is stated clearly enough in the above message alone.

Nobody can have proof of that, because no such proof can ever exist. How would you ever have a proven correct number of cheaters not detected?

I agree with you that the one liner isn’t a good example, but I do prefer the “left to right” syntax shown in the article. My brain just really likes getting the information in this order: “Iterate over Collection, and for each object do Operation(object)”.

The cost of writing member functions for each class is a valid concern. I’m really interested in the concept of uniform function call syntax for this reason, though I haven’t played around with a language that has it to get a feeling of what its downsides might be.

globally trivial

Please share your trivial solution then.

Multicast wouldn’t really replace any of the sites you mention because people want and are used to on-demand curated content.

It’s also not as practical as you make it sound to implement it for the entire internet. You claim that this would be efficient because you only have to send the packets out once regardless of the number of subscribers. But how would the packets be routed to your subscribers? Does every networking device on the internet hold a list of all subscriptions to correctly route the packets? Or would you blindly flood the entire internet with these packets?

The crawlers for LLM are not themselves LLMs.

Your examples where an LLM is defending a position you chose for it while producing obviously conflicting arguments actually proves what the others have been telling you. This is meaningless slop. It clearly has no connection to any position an LLM might have appeared to have on a subject. If it did, you would not be able to make it defend the opposite side without objections.

The article kind of fumbles the wording and creates confusion. There are, however, some passages that indicate to me that the actual data was recovered. All of the following are taking about the NAND flash memory.

The engineers quickly found that all the data was there despite Tesla’s previous claims.

…

Now, the plaintiffs had access to everything.

…

Moore was astonished by all the data found through cloning the Autopilot ECU:

“For an engineer like me, the data out of those computers was a treasure‑trove of how this crash happened.”

…

On top of all the data being so much more helpful, Moore found unallocated space and metadata for snapshot_collision_airbag‑deployment.tar’, including its SHA‑1 checksum and the exact server path.

It seems that maybe the .tar file itself was not recovered, but all the data about the crash was still there.

Forensic analysis managed to retrieve this data, so it must have been stored in non-volatile memory.

I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:

Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.

I read through a few pages of the comments here and they’re mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build… I only found a single message that could be called abuse:

@eugene, not really but i suspect it’s an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c

FWIW, I’m moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.

And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it’s obviously a reaction to stenzek’s hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.

I remember the maintainer claiming they had permission from all contributors to change the license but I can’t find a link to it now.

The common misconception that swap is pointless stems from misunderstanding what it’s supposed to do. You shouldn’t be triggering the OOM killer frequently anyway. In the much more normal case where you’re only using some of your RAM for running applications, the rest is used as a filesystem cache/buffer. Having swap space available gives your OP the option to evict stale application memory from RAM rather than the filesystem cache when that would be the optimal choice to make.

This page explains it detail: https://chrisdown.name/2018/01/02/in-defence-of-swap.html

Political views as they are, it’s gotten a lot of pushback

Yeah, the comment above mixed up grammar nazis with actual nazis I guess.

This makes no sense. There might be various reasons a person might want/need to be on facebook. Does that mean they waive all right to privacy in every aspect of their life forever?

What did he do? I’m out of the loop.

No, there’s no way to automatically make something become law. A successful petition just forces the European Commission to discuss it and potentially propose legislation. Even though it’s not forcing anything to happen, there is an incentive for the commission to seriously consider it as there is probably a political cost to officially denying a motion that has proven that it concerns a large amount of people.

Sign the petition even if it’s surpassed 1mil signatures by the time you read this! The signatures will be verified after the petition is complete. This could lead to removal of any number of them. We don’t want to barely make it. Let’s go as high as possible!

That’s just like your opinion man.

Yeah for sure there’s ton of clickbait, but this isn’t “a minor technical matter”. The news here isn’t the clash over whether the patch should be accepted in the RC branch, but the fact that Linus said he wants to remove bcachefs from the kernel tree.