I think this only works because there is top-down integration between the different parts. The compositor knows when it's supposed to be locked. Whereas the old screen lockers were just very aggressive Xorg apps that suffer from "What if two programs did this?" problems (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110310-00/?p=11...)
The removal of dictionary definitions from google search (even if you use "define") is absolutely infuriating. Dictionary definitions are written with the exact amount of precision/broadness needed for each particular word, compared to AI output which is just wrong most of the time.
Can't they just compete in separate categories? People have been making high-level computer mods years before even ComputerCraft, RedPower, or OpenComputers existed. And people will continue to make pure-redstone computers far into the future. Neither category is replacing the other :)
Indeed, <noscript> doesn't show just because the page didn't properly load the scripts in the page. It's not a fallback for errors, it's a fallback to serve users who deliberately disabled Javascript. This is a rare scenario these days, but it does get displayed when you disable JS in Tor Browser, use the disable Javascript button in uBlock Origin (I personally use this to whitelist javascript per-domain), or use various other extensions like NoScript. This is dependent on the implementation, though. In theory some crappy browser extension could provide JS disabling functionality otherwise identical to tor/ublock/noscript but forget to display <noscript>s, but I haven't heard of implementations that are like this.
Either way, make sure you have something sensible to display for all scenarios, even if it's just an error page. Mysterious blank pages are not fun.
> In theory some crappy browser extension could provide JS disabling functionality otherwise identical to tor/ublock/noscript but forget to display <noscript>s, but I haven't heard of implementations that are like this.
Any no-JS extension worths its salt should actually at least provide an option to ignore <noscript> as some websites that would otherwise work perfectly fine without JS use it maliciously.
Not sure if uBlock Origin has a checkbox to turn off <noscript> globally, but since it is an ad blocker, you could just manually add a global filter on all <noscript> tags. Or you could rely on the community's filter lists to remove specific instances of bullshit found in popular websites.
> And even for background tasks shouldn't it be better to have them complete faster for less power
Race to idle is only clearly beneficial for tasks that have a clear start and end. If a background task is sustained, responds to unpredictable events, or does small amounts of work and wakes frequently, the CPU's boost logic won't solve your energy usage problem.
> To say nothing about what if they have different features. what happens when a process that wants to use cpu feature X(avx512?) gets scheduled on a cpu without X
This idea has been proposed in the past, but isn't actually used on x86-64 or ARM. E-cores have the same instruction set as P-cores, so there's no risk of running into an invalid CPU instruction.
Truly heterogeneous instruction sets may come back in the future, though. So be on your toes.
In this case, no insiders broke the embargo. It was reverse engineered from the patch by an unrelated third party and a proof of concept immediately came out of it. At that point, it's kinda fair game.
I assume that while Mythos may be really good at finding vulnerabilities, lighter models may still do a pretty good job of explaining/exploiting the vulnerability if given the patch which fixes it.
Maintainers attempt to reduce the likelihood of that somewhat by giving security patches boring-sounding commit messages. When there are thousands of patches for every kernel release to sift through, that adds a small barrier for would-be exploiters.
For proprietary software, sure. But open source projects rarely ever work like this.
Especially for a project like the kernel, there's no reasonable way to decide who out of thousands of interested parties should have access first.
Android is a rare exception, as of a few years ago they started a program where phone manufacturers get very favorable early access to AOSP code 4 months ahead of public release.
Cloudflare seems to be on a streak, boasting about new capabilities that are only useful for mass spam. When can we start blocking them for deliberately harboring spam?
For-profit companies jurisdiction shopping without any physical presence is so clearly sketchy that it's wild anyone could see it otherwise. I can't imagine a normal person not being shocked in disbelief when they first learn about the concept of tax havens.
Maybe when it’s Panama. But there is not a single sketchy reason why companies choose to incorporate in Delaware, for instance.
There are very legitimate reasons to incorporate in another location. Some are not only not sketchy, but even altruistic, e.g. incorporating in another state for the purpose of incorporating as a PBC.
Delaware is quite literally a tax haven set up to assist in evading as many local laws as possible. Do we just excuse it because it's a US state and speaks English?
Why is it shocking to suggest that multi-national companies deliberately arrange to have their headquarters in a legal jurisdiction that has favorable tax laws for them? This makes perfect sense and it's something I would consider doing myself if I was starting a company.
its one thing to actually put your headquarters somewhere. Quite another to use tricks to put your "headquarters" somewhere, and the office where you and most of your employees go to work halfway across the world.
And what of incorporating somewhere, having your headquaters somewhere else, having your main office in a third place, and this all owned by a shell company in a fourth place, with all your assets owned by a fifth company, which rents it back to you for extortionate rates, your EU subsidiary in a sixth place, the actual EU offices in a seventh place, etc etc etc.
Thats not even approaching the trickery and deceit that is accepted as completely normal - let alone the ones that actually get in trouble
Do these sorts of things have legal benefits for the companies involved? (yes)
If I had a company over a certain size, I'd probably do it too. But it has sharply negative consequences for the rest of society, and for trust in the system in general.
If the only shell(s) for a business are in a completely different jurisdiction with no connection whatsoever to any of the humans involved in operating the organization... yes. It's an outrageous way to escape the force of the law that has been rubber stamped by corrupt politicians.
It is exceeding common for US companies to incorporate without a presence in Delaware for the exact opposite reason of dodging the law. It is done to make legal compliance easier and more streamlined.
No, Polymarket is sketchy as fuck. I was disputing the allegation that there's something inherently wrong with having a registered agent in another locale.
Oh, c'mon, that's a huge exaggeration. US companies commonly incorporate in Delaware due to its generally-friendly business regulation with a ton of legal precedent surrounding it, and a court system well positioned to handle business-related cases.
If they're incorporated there because that makes regulatory compliance easier, then that's not "dodging", that's just... doing what's allowed.
And it's not like incorporating in Delaware is a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the company does have a presence in other states, the laws of those states are binding in many circumstances; the state of incorporation is irrelevant there. And there's always US federal law. Choice of state isn't going to change anything when the feds come knocking.
The issue at hand is Polymarket claiming they are based in Panama, outside the US's jurisdiction, but presumably being headquartered in the US. You might say this is no different from a company being incorporated in, say, the UK, doing business there, hiring people, maintaining an office, and then also having offices in the US, but... this is not the same, and it's a little odd that you seem to be missing that fact.
And on top of that, often multi-nationals will have a legal entity in every country where they operate. Do they have one in the US? If not, and they are de-facto headquartered here, that's beyond sketchy. And even if they do, if they've structured things such that they can shield their assets from US legal judgments for crimes or torts committed on US soil, that's also pretty damn sketchy.
Polymarket is clearly flying close to the sun, at a minimum. There's plenty of evidence to show that, but "every company with legal entities in some other place is doing something wrong" isn't one of them, as was claimed by others in this thread. Delaware is a convenient example of why this just simply isn't true.
Sure. Poor people ruin millions of families every year with pointless violent robberies, sexual assaults in back alleys, and worse.
Does anyone of sound mind make it a class issue? Of course not. It would make about as much sense as blaming every rich person for random white collar crimes.
Anyone who argues it is a class issue is not of sound mind?
Those who disagree with you are crazy.
Right.
Says one vain but ultimately useless meat suit whose food and shelter the rest of us don't have to concern ourselves with because it's so inconsequential an existence it props nothing important up.
Ah it's people like you that provide the most entertainment in life. Watching you shill delusions about your economic achievements in a physical reality that doesn't care you exist and a social system that provides no assurances your efforts today will afford you food and shelter in the future.
As the other 8 billion on the planet while you live don't notice you exist.
But you're of sound mind; a privilege you give yourself to begin with. Lol. Sad.
What’s your contention? If the per capita incidences of either rich or poor people ruining families is a worse number, then what’s the implication?
That whatever group has a worse impact should be “gotten rid of”? What if poor people are worse? You’d abandon that line of thinking entirely, I imagine.
What’s next? If people with red cars are statistically more likely to commit crimes we should round them up as long as you don’t personally have a red car?
For example, KDE: https://preview.redd.it/plasma-lock-screen-messed-up-v0-zx7h...
GNOME: https://forums.freebsd.org/attachments/index-jpeg.8571/
I think this only works because there is top-down integration between the different parts. The compositor knows when it's supposed to be locked. Whereas the old screen lockers were just very aggressive Xorg apps that suffer from "What if two programs did this?" problems (https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110310-00/?p=11...)