You say this like a system of international law has ever existed that effectively restrains the most powerful nations in the world, democracies or otherwise.
>Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 miles per hour (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured, but in a disoriented state. When it recovered, it attacked the crew.
If every device is directly connected to every other one of n devices with Thunderbolt cables, each with its own dedicated set of PCIe lanes, you'd be limited to 1/n of the theoretical maximum bandwidth between any two devices.
What you really want is for every device to be connected through a massive PCIe switch that allows PCIe lanes to be connected arbitrarily, so, e.g., a pair of EPYCs could communicate over 96 lanes with 32 lanes free to connect to peripheral devices.
And while the US is a member of the UN and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (not the ICC), as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it also has the power to unilaterally veto any enforcement action (as do China, France, Russia, and the UK).
Ok? The ICC prosecutes war crimes in complementarity. The ICJ does not. Not sure what UN Security Council has to do with anything? I can't tell if this is AI. Add to your slop context you're probably thinking of IHL.
What you are leaving out is that governments can choose whether the ICC definition of warcrime applies to their territory. Iran has chosen that the Rome treaty, and the ICC, does not apply to Iran. It has even used this fact to request the ICC drop cases against them.
We all know why: 99.99% of warcrimes on Iranian territory were committed by Iran's islamist regime.
So Rome statute warcrimes are a legal impossibility in Iran. The Rome statute, that law and that definition of warcrime does not apply to anything happening in Iran.
Depends on whether there's room in the budget to integrate something like a full-fat Raspberry Pi board, at which point, your light switches and thermostats can be full-fledged Kubernetes nodes if you like.
Never underestimate software developers' ability to simultaneously over- and underengineer a solution, especially if the only limitation is hardware cost (read: somebody else's problem).
Not exactly, though many apps violate Apple's Human Interface Guidelines for macOS menu bar extras[1]:
Let people — not your app — decide whether to put your menu bar extra in the menu bar. Typically, people add a menu bar extra to the menu bar by changing a setting in an app’s settings window. To ensure discoverability, however, consider giving people the option of doing so during setup.
Avoid relying on the presence of menu bar extras. The system hides and shows menu bar extras regularly, and you can’t be sure which other menu bar extras people have chosen to display or predict the location of your menu bar extra.
Consider exposing app-specific functionality in other ways, too. For example, you can provide a Dock menu that appears when people Control-click your app’s Dock icon. People can hide or choose not to use your menu bar extra, but a Dock menu is aways available when your app is running.
You're not wrong, but largely as a result of dubious architectural decisions made in the name of backwards compatibility and minimal hardware requirements, Microsoft sold 40 million copies of Windows 95 in its first year, compared to 300,000 copies of Windows NT 3.1.
Consider:
Windows 95 ran the vast majority of MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 applications with minimal performance loss, supported MS-DOS and Windows 3.x drivers for hardware that lacked 32-bit driver support, and ran acceptably on a 386 with as little as 4 MB RAM.
The properly architected Windows NT 3.1, released two years before Windows 95, had limited MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 application support, required NT-specific drivers for all hardware, and required 12 MB RAM to boot, 16 MB to do anything useful, and you really wanted a 486 for decent performance.
Now try a 3rd comment that actually connects to the design deficiency described in the article instead of a generic grievance about rearchitectrue that included a gazillion of changes
As I understand it, ish implements x86 instructions and Linux syscalls as functions and translates running programs into arrays of calls to these functions, so all the machine code that will ever run is included in the app bundle, which at least satisfies the rules iOS enforces at runtime.
As for the rules as written, I suppose you could make reasonable arguments either way.
The third-party aspect is irrelevant, but while high downtime on any product looks bad for the company and the division, I consider GitHub Copilot an entirely separate product from GitHub, and GitHub Copilot downtime doesn't interfere with my use of GitHub repos or vice versa, so I'd consider its downtime separately.
GitHub Actions, on the other hand, is frequently used in the same workflows as the base GitHub product, so it's worth considering both separately and together, much like various Azure services, whereas I see no reason at all to consider an aggregate "Microsoft" downtime metric that includes GitHub, Azure, Office 365, Xbox Live, etc.
The most useful, metric, actually, is "downtimes for the various collections of GitHub services I regularly use together", but that would obviously require effort to collect the data myself.
My use of GitHub is like yours; I depend on Actions, but I couldn't give less of a damn about Copilot. However, Microsoft has tried to get people to adopt Copilot-heavy workflows, where Copilot plays an integral part in the pull request review process. If your process is as Microsoft pushes for -- wait for Copilot to comment, then review and resolve the stuff Copilot points out -- then Copilot being down means you can't really handle pull request, at least not in accordance with your standard process. For people who embrace Copilot in the way Microsoft wants them to, a GitHub Copilot outage has a serious impact on their GitHub experience.
reply