It’s not really even used within the Federation, just for trade with entities outside the Federation which do use currency.

The justification for patents is that after a (relatively) short period of being under patent, because patents have to disclose how inventions work, the idea isn’t secret and anyone can use it. The patent system is the whole reason why companies don’t and can’t hide their inventions anymore. If we just got rid of the patent system wholesale, they’d go back to keeping things secret. That might be a big problem, or it might mean that, because anything that’s been reverse-engineered would be fair game, more things end up available sooner, depending on whether companies can obfuscate things well enough that it takes longer for a hobbyist to figure out than the patent would have to expire.

Technically it’s just that particular English translation that’s copyrighted. The original text is public domain.

Most CO2 tanks and brass fittings don’t inject money into the Israeli economy - that’s specific to Soda Stream. Also you won’t lose your warranty on a CO2 tank for fizzing things that aren’t water, but you will with Soda Stream. Also, without a real Soda Stream, you won’t be forced to stay in each of a power outlet to run an LED that doesn’t accomplish anything except giving the machine a reason to refuse to run without electricity.

Don’t compromise - if you get a competing countertop fizzing system with a pretty case, it won’t fund a genocidal state, void your warranty for fizzing juice, or require power for no good reason. These are unique Soda Stream advantages.

I’m baffled that I didn’t already know that lootboxes were created by the husband of the woman that the Pulp hit Common People was most likely written about.

Unlike Reddit, it’s possible to edit the link a post links to after the fact, so it’s possible to swap in an uncropped link later instead of just removing the post.

In a lot of the world, chicken isn’t typically sold like this and people aren’t doing it themselves. If it ends up dry, it’s taken as a sign that it’s overcooked, not that it should have been brined.

The context: the UK ended slavery within the empire by taking out a huge loan to buy all the slaves in the empire, then freeing them. The loan wasn’t fully paid off until recently, so UK taxpayers were effectively paying for money that had been given to slave owners. However, it quickly and decisively put a stop to slavery in a lot of the world without much fuss or objection, when it otherwise could have triggered wars.

Incel generally means the mindset rather than the literal definition. Getting laid doesn’t stop someone being an incel, and failure to get laid doesn’t make someone into one. It’s all the misogyny, entitlement and self-loathing that makes someone an incel.

One of the stills from one of the videos that the BBC showed identifying it as a Tomahawk showed it at a very un-cruise-missile way up, so it could just have malfunctioned during terminal guidance or been clipped but not destroyed by air defence, and then hit the wrong target. It could also just have been a governmenty-looking building close enough to an intended target that whoever was checking it didn’t notice it wasn’t the target. It’s a lot easier to get everything right when the whole mission is to hit one person with one missile when everyone’s got enough time to do their job perfectly and everything’s been rehearsed than when there are thousands of targets and people are doing things in a rush, especially if orders are coming from people who don’t care about international law.

There’s nothing inherent to small components to suggest that you have to review them. If they’re small, it’s easier to tell yourself that the LLM probably got them right and you’re justified in not checking.

Using an LLM to write tests and small components is still vibe coding.

If we go by George W Bush the French have no word for entrepreneur rules, then there’s no Dutch word for apartheid anymore since it was taken for English.

Cultural appropriation is something like McDonald’s advertising a new Indian burger and it’s just a beefburger with some chillies in it, i.e. someone’s attempting to gain from a bastardised caracature of the culture that wouldn’t be something someone from that culture would participate in. Right wing pundits intentionally misrepresented it as things like eating a traditional dish from another culture to make it sound stupid so people would dismiss it, and then people who’d only heard the misrepresentation but wanted to do the right thing or at least appear to be doing the right thing started acting like it was immoral to participate in any culture you weren’t born into.

If all the profiles are garbage, then:

• it would be bad UX to start using one of the garbage profiles and declare that the monitor’s now working.
• it would be better UX to notice all the profiles have nonsensical values, fall back to a basic one all monitors typically support, and display an error message.

How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.

Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.

If there are potentially buggy or broken monitors that sometimes report the wrong value, then a bounds check that enforces sane values makes sense. If the range of sane values changes decades later, then you’ll have to update things, but you’ll likely need to update other things on that timescale anyway, e.g. to support newer display connectors that support the new limits.

Premature optimisation often makes things slower rather than faster. E.g. if something’s written to have the theoretical optimal Big O complexity class, that might only break even around a million elements, and be significantly slower for a hundred elements where everything fits in L1 and the simplest implemention possible is fine. If you don’t know the kind of situations the implementation will be used in yet, you can’t know whether the optimisation is really an optimisation. If it’s only used a few times on a few elements, then it doesn’t matter either way, but if it’s used loads but only ever on a small dataset, it can make things much worse.

Also, it’s common that the things that end up being slow in software are things the developer didn’t expect to be slow (otherwise they’d have been careful to avoid them). Premature optimisation will only ever affect the things a developer expects to be slow.

Reform aren’t devoid of ties to Russia, so where the UK’s national security is at odds with Putin’s interests, it won’t be a priority. Russian gas will never be sold to the UK again if the UK stops buying gas.