“[…] In exchange for a waiver of fees accrued since 2023”
Sounds like Oracle got them with the good 'ol “buy an even bigger license or we’ll sue you”
But AMD has been making leaps and bounds improving their GPU software
They are still largely shitting the bed here. Their ROCm installer won’t run on Ubuntu 25.04 last time I checked, and the 9070xt won’t work on OSs that ROCm DOES support because the kernel and graphics stack is too old.
ROCm has been “almost ready” to be a drop-in replacement for CUDA for almost a decade. I feel like it literally would take nvidia ceasing to exist to give them the critical mass to push it over the finish line
It’s a government institution that is set up like a normal corporation, but with the government as the shareholder. If that’s not an ass backwards way of providing an essential service I don’t know what is.
Counterpoint: by operating at arm’s length it can’t be steered on a whim by a sitting government, e.g. like DeJoy grinding USPS to a half during the 2020 election. Same can be said about CBC
Lenovo apparently offers the choice on some models, with the windows license adding $140 to the price of the laptop.
We’re at a point where it’s no longer profitable for individual miners
We have been at that point since GPU mining stopped being feasible in 2014, it’s just gotten worse. ASICs made it so the only people who could profit off mining were people who could place a wholesale sized order of hardware from bitmain, etc. Anyone else who claimed to be mining profitably was likely someone who was:
unless there’s a radical change in bitcoin’s algorithm
The algorithm already does this though. Every 2016 blocks if it took more than 10 minutes per block, the difficulty of mining bitcoin goes down, not up. This is why every halving event you see a radical drop in difficulty, because at a given kWh you are producing half as many bitcoin - meaning people turned off their miners because it’s less profitable. The flipside is the rate of issuance goes down, so there is a lower inflationary effect, and the price of Bitcoin usually also skyrockets (which means eventually these miners re-enter, and difficulty eventually goes back to where it was). It can never get to a point where Bitcoin mining is completely unprofitable unless the price goes to zero, because there will always be a guy with a solar panel and fully paid-off hardware who can mine it for free. Granted, it can get to a point where a lot of people have to take a huge loss on capital expenditures if the price nosedives and never recovers
Miners like Riot Blockchain are operating at a loss
I’m not a finance wizard, but I peeked at their last SEC filing, and first 3 quarters of 2024 they posted a 35m operating loss, but added almost 900m worth of assets to their balance sheet (mostly Bitcoin), which to me tells a very different story
The quote is actually from the article this one paraphrased and linked to, while leaving out all of the actual, you know, information
New data tells us that mining a single Bitcoin or one BTC costs the largest public mining companies over $82,000 USD, which is nearly double the figure it did the previous quarter. Estimates for smaller organisations say you need to spend about $137,000 to get that single BTC in return. BTC is currently only valued at $94,703 USD, which seems to be a problem in the math department.
Bitcoin mining will always be profitable for the people with the cheapest electricity and largest economies of scale. There is a difficulty adjustment algorithm in the protocol that ensures this. When the price tanks people turn off thier miners, difficulty adjusts downwards, and then it takes less electricity to find a block.
tl;dr title is wrong
Also the Linux license does not require you to open source your product, this is why a huge chunk of Google Android is closed source and distributed separately from its open source components.
You only need to open-source modifications and kernel side code (drivers, etc). There is a clearly defined boundary in the license (syscall exception) that makes it crystal clear that proprietary applications can use the kernel as long as they are only touching the user-space API headers
It absolutely improves with practice, and once you have settled on an aesthetic you like you can simply reuse the code, e.g. store all your color/line properties in a variable and just update each figure with that variable
My thesis had something like 30 figures, and at multiple points I had to do things like “put these all on a log scale instead” or “whoops, data on row 143,827 looks like it was transcribed wrong, need to fix it”
While setting everything up in ggplot took a couple hours, making those changes to 30 figures in ggplot took seconds, whereas it would have taken a monumental amount of time to do manually in excel
Not an American, but basically decide how much risk you want to take on - then depending on that answer set aside money (0-40%) for safe investments - things like bonds (guaranteed returns) or potentially gold (lower volatility). The rest goes into a 80/20 (or 60/40, or 90/10, no one can say what’s best) split between domestic and international index funds. Things like the S&P500, Dow, and US whole market index, and then some into EU, Asia/Oceana, and emerging market index funds.
OP said it was to notify you when an alarm went off, not when it ran out of batteries.
You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t
If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.
Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion
As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.
If goes against established norms here
What’s the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?
he said politically motivated changes aren’t welcome
What’s politically motivated about changing “he” to “they”. As you said, gender doesn’t apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.
Yes, I’m sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s
But you’re right, it doesn’t matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project
https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992
Really?
This screams “women not wanted” to me
If the code doesn’t change, the resulting docker image will have the same hash, and a new image won’t be created
https://github.com/jackett/jackett/releases
Jackett is literally just releasing a new version every day
and I’ve encountered zero bugs so far
This is my only complaint - it crashes a lot for me
Southern Australian springtime swimmers who properly update their Bayesian priors know that sharks are the true danger, NOT lightning strikes or plane crashes