Jesus fuck thank you, it’s so hard seeing a bunch of doomer shit in threads like this

Blind brand loyalty to something you don’t enjoy is a waste of your precious time on earth

I’d honestly prefer raw parroting in most cases, even if it’s “obviously” wrong. I don’t want people selectively interpreting the facts as have been conveyed to them, unless they’re prepared to do a proper peer review.

I googled Pyhäsalmi Mine gravitricity "2 MW" and EVERY article covering this has also cited 2 MW.

Now, under Occam’s Razor, what’s more likely:

1. Absolutely none of the article writers have any clue what the difference between a MW and a MWh is because none of them remember any physics
2. Some of them could suspect that it’s wrong, but an authoritative source of the claim wrote/said 2 MW capacity when they meant “2 MW peak generation” or “2 MWh storage” (I’d presume Gravitricity, but I’m struggling to find such a source, myself)
3. One writer miswrote/misquoted as per 2, and everyone is mindlessly recycling that original article’s contents with no attribution or care.

I don’t know which one it is. But I’d generally lean against 1.

The FDA regulation on Net Weight is found in 21 CFR 101.105. In this regulation FDA makes allowance for reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good manufacturing practice. FDA states that variations from the stated quantity of contents should not be unreasonably large.

While FDA does not provide a specific allowable tolerance for Net Weight, this matter could come under FTC jurisdiction. FTC has proposed regulations that would unify USDA and FDA Net Contents labeling and incorporate information found in the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) Handbook 133.

NIST Handbook 133 specifies that the average net quantity of contents in a lot must at least equal the net quantity declared on the label. Plus or minus deviation is permitted when caused by unavoidable variation in weighing and measuring that occur in good manufacturing practice. The maximum allowable variance for a package with a net weight declaration of 5 oz is 5/16 oz. Packages under-filled by more than this amount are considered non-compliant.

http://www.foodconsulting.com/q&a.htm

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human. Phishing, writing down passwords, and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes all make them more secure.

Expiration on its own doesn’t make it more secure, but it can if it’s in the context of loading the token onto a system that you might lose track of/not have access to in the future.

Individual API tokens can also be revoked without revoking all of them, unlike a password where changing it means you have to re-login everywhere.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Lmk if you have questions, though.

Right?? To let your website be susceptible to that kind of act by anyone means that you probably didn’t really care about security in the first place, so much as just getting the magic lock icon happy.

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. I think it’s a bit distasteful to armchair diagnose someone you don’t know, though

Thank you for actually attempting to answer the question instead of just spouting the knee-jerk reaction of “it’s bullshit”.

And yes, maybe it is bullshit. Maybe they’ll never end up actually offsetting their carbon footprint. Maybe they’ll think they are, but end up getting scammed out themselves. Last Week Tonight did a great piece on Carbon Offsets on that whole subject.

Yeah the headline is stupid bait.

They already built it. They’re trying to contribute the change upstream.

Which is technically “requesting higher core support”, but is a very obnoxious way to phrase it.

Yeah, considering how in-your-face this popup was, I can’t really take someone seriously when they just say that it was “opt-out”…

Like, I get it on a technicality. But c’mon.

Absolutely fucking me_irl

That’s only for a single service, not really what OP seems to be asking for

Fully agreed, hence the “most” :^)

I very rarely care for what most 62 year olds have to say about the capabilities about the theoretical limits of computation.

This isn’t much different.

Depending on whether this code is in a hotpath (and considering how “elementary” it is, I figure that’s a possibility), this could very well be a significant speed improvement.

Though I’d say that only excuses it if it’s truly an elementary function (and not one line as part of a larger function), as otherwise it’s unreadable garbage. But on its own it:

• has a clear purpose
• (presumably) isn’t reimplementing functionality
• is easily tested
• can be modified with no side effects (besides breaking your calendar, but that’s beside the point)

Right? Like, I felt like I was missing the punchline here.

This honestly a very well-written article

From the top of this thread, Valve was suggested as a candidate for someone who might already be interested in these things, perhaps to the point of invested into each of those.

Or maybe they don’t. Maybe nobody does.

People can speculate and dream. Nobody’s speaking authoritatively here, and certainly nobody is petitioning that Linus himself get down and dirty in anti-cheat functionality.

Or here’s a revolutionary thought: let people voluntarily (and reversably) opt-in to kernel-level anti-cheats.

Part of freedom is the freedom to choose.