The CCP control is strictly about blast radius. Individual citizen in their homes are rarely subject to any enforcement action. Even talking critically on social media in small circles is mostly fine (apart from simple "bad-word" filters that just remove whole messages).
The moment you reach a wider audience or "disrupt public harmony", they come down on you.
Yeah but ultimately that is far more dangerous, no? The law enables severe punishments that are applied arbitrarily by those tasked with enforcing it. Knowing there is a clear and reliable line you can't cross allows for opposition movements to take advantage of that line and build within the narrow demarcations. Arbitrary enforcement means you can never know if someone in charge has it out for you that day because you probably already broke laws that could be used against you before coming anywhere near actively participating in political dissent.
As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
I'm not sure what the surveillance has to do. I was responding to a comment saying that while the CCP cracks down on dissidents it does so mostly based on perceived "blast radius" (i.e. reach). I'm saying this selective enforcement is actually worse than if they just blindly enforced a specific ban.
If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice.
This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
The results of the Safire type 3 reactor were verified by a third party lab. It's amazing that you can just post out of your ass like that as if you have any idea what the hell you're talking about.
Maybe I'm just bad at it but your claim does not show up on Google. Can you please give me a report that shows which lab verified it and the results? And no, a random video from the Safire website does not count because my assumption is that they are scam artists.
If you sincerely believe they are scam artists, then please explain something for us.
The finding, shared at the EU 2017 conference here https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=7y46wMAHnsI , documented on video, is an example of a Langmuir probe (a tungsten rod) evaporating.
After the tungsten rod evaporated, the Safire team tried a much larger tungsten rod which did not immediately evaporate, but rapidly decayed, as was documented.
If the Safire team is a team of scam artists, how were they able to do something new that had not been done* before?
Is there any example of this given before year 2017? Is any other team able to take credit for this finding?
[*] done unclassified, many suspect this knowledge was already attained in classified (as in national security secrets) type environments.
>> your claim does not show up on Google.
I want to make sure I answer your question, can you narrow down which claim you are asking about?
As far as "which laboratory verified the results of the Safire type 3 reactor rendering radioactive material benign?", I will reach out to them and just ask them.
The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference, it's a pseudo-science conference with little to no evidence or science behind it. Anyone claiming any wild thing can go and present there. There is no actual peer reviewed evidence here.
So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims, I'll remain extremely sceptical. So far all we have are wild claims and fancy videos all from a single source and that just won't cut it to convince me.
I appreciate your tacit yet loud acknowledgement that you are UNABLE to provide a single example pre-dating year 2017 where a tungsten rod was demonstrated to rapidly decay when exposed to a plasma fusion reaction.
A scam artist would not be able to originally discover and present such a result.
>> So as long as no reputable independent team is a able to verify their claims
The Safire team has worked directly with LLNL, which is as "reputable" as Science(TM) gets.
>> The EU 2017 conference is not a science conference
Nobody said the EU 2017 is not a Science(TM) conference. The Safire team is just one of many speakers there.
Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?
Let me state this again, I do not trust them as a source. I can't find any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration as well. Especially nothing from the llnl side.
>> any information regarding any Safire and llnl collaboration
What I know about this information is from about six years ago, which is what I can tell you today. I probably have it saved somewhere.
>> Can you please give me evidence for anything you have written in this thread that did not originate from Safire or aureon?
The short answer is yes. Separate from that, I also have access to two of their laboratories later this year. This is contingent not on their willingness to allow me access but my own itinerary for the year.
Given the details the Aureon team has shared, very clearly not Rossi's lab. I don't want to hurt your feelings or whatever here, I'm just going to be very very honest with you, if your comment wasn't so obviously in bad faith, that would be a very dumb guess.
I understand the provocations and have warned the other commenter elsewhere in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39584466). But you also broke the site guidelines badly—not just here, but also:
Please don't respond to bad comments by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The very real fact that the radioactive material was rendered benign was proven by the third party laboratory. You presented a guess about which laboratory it was. Your guess was both stupid and wrong.
You have not successfully trolled. You did not "strike a nerve", but you did provoke a disgust response. You are not even midwit tier intelligence.
I applaud your optimism but the bcachefs install base is tiny compared to btrfs and still there are corruption and data loss stories on Reddit so maybe give it another 5-10 years of mainstream use to stabilize.
I’m mostly excited about having access to a filesystem that can happy handle a heterogeneous set of disks with RAID 5/6 style redundancy.
BTRFS RAID-5 implementation has know data loss issues (write hole) that has existed for years now, and doesn’t seem likely to fixed soon.
Then there’s roadmap feature of extending bcachefs native allocation buckets to match up with physical buckets on storage media like SMR drives and also SSDs that expose their underlying NAND arrangement, allowing bcachefs to orchestrate writes in a manner that best fits the target media. Creates the opportunity for bcachefs to get incredibly high performance on SMR drives (compared to FS that don’t understand SMR media), which would probably provide CMR style performance on SMR drives in all but the most random write workloads.
But yeah, there’s still some distance for bcachefs to go. But given its inclusion into mainline, and the fact that mainline only accepts filesystems that have already demonstrated a high level of robustness and completeness (semi-recent policy change driven by experiences with FS like BTRFS which took so long to become complete and stable after merge), gives me hope we won’t need 5-10 years of mainstream use for bcachefs to stabilise.
That's still ridiculously slow.
I'd expect them to have hundreds of Microservices. Each one of those should be able to handle a random restart at any point in time so they should absolutely be able to restart 100s of servers concurrently without major disruptions.
Hell on Facebook scale a whole-Datacenter going down should not cause service disruptions.
It's absolutely fantastic. I feel disabled coding without it in my spare time. Imagine a pair programming session with someone that can read your mind and knows the entire codebase. I don't know how much I'm allowed to talk about so I'll leave it at that.
I don't have access to copilot so I can't compare but I'd wager it works a lot better for Google internally because the training data is customized to Google.
Interesting, I didn't find it that impressive when I tried it a couple months ago and fairly quickly went back to regular old-fashioned autocomplete. What language(s) were you working with out of curiosity?
I'm at Google and am not entirely sure what you are referring to, but I'd love to try it. Could you provide an internal codename I could search for? Or is it integrated somewhere in Cider (the name is public knowledge so I'm not leaking anything by using this) that you could guide me to (i.e. X dropdown -> 3rd option) while preserving ambiguity?
I’m fascinated that of two people working at the same company, one raves about how an internal tool is a complete game changer and indispensable while another isn’t even aware it exists.
I'm fascinated that at a 175k employee company, two employees I know nothing about, in business areas or positions I know nothing about, could possibly use different tooling for their day to day duties.
*Surely* at your place of work, the cleaning staff is familiar with the CTO's dearest tools and vice versa?
That’s an unnecessarily snarky answer given the two people above are clearly both in similar roles. The parent comment was asking where to find the option in the tooling they both shared.
Snarky replies comparing CTO to cleaning staff don’t even begin to apply.
It's a conversation that isn't relevant to anyone outside the company. One commenter, who may or may not work in Google, is asking for an internal codename.
You're the downvoter here so why does my comment bother _you_ so much?
I had the exact same reaction. Saw the massive list of new features and decided to wait for .1 or .2 releases to shake out the bugs. Seems like patience is paying off as always.
Having commuted 55 minutes each way into Munich for more than a year, I'd say my average daily delay is about 15 minutes with >30 minutes delay happening at least once a week.
That's a level of regular delay that makes early morning meetings impractical because I'll be late more likely than not.
anecdotal, but my experience a year ago when i travelled international was: 2/2 delays by OEBB that made me miss connections (and absolutely rude and inconsiderate customer service reps in Vienna HBF on top of that), 1/1 on time trains by DB ICE
This is not saying anything about being open. This is talking about federation and stable protocols.
Both absolutly do hamper fast evolution of a product because they require a LOT of coordination and consensus, both of which are incredibly expensive and time consuming.
With a non-federated and unstable protocol, they are free to update and deprecated whatever they like and on a fast timescale. That is impossible with a federated stable protocol.
This has nothing to do with FOSS.
XMPP is a good example of a protocol that got fragmented to death by many many different and incompatible extensions, ultimately making it too fragmented and too slow to adopt to new requirements.
That's not actually true. The conditions for the formation of coal and oil may likely never happen again because the bacteria to break decompose trees did not exist then but exist now, making oil formation impossible because trees decompose now. Unless they all die out, we won't get any new oil ever.
I'm curious about this. We certainly won't get any more coal, but a whole lot of carbon gets subducted into the mantle regularly. Some gets turned into diamonds. Some gets blown out of volcanoes. Is the oil we pump out of the ground produced directly in the continental crust or is it generated from some of this carbon subducted with oceanic crust that has been transformed by some process and then made its way back into continental crust?
I'm lazy, so I'm hoping some geologist will stop by and educate me.
