In real life, all quantum entanglement means is that you can entangle two particles, move them away from each other, and still know that when you measure one, the other will have the opposite value. It's akin to putting a red ball in one box and a blue ball in another, then muddling them up and posting them to two addresses. When opening one box, you instantly know that because you saw a red ball, the other recipient has a blue one or vice versa, but that's it. The extra quantum bit is just that the particles still do quantum things as if they're a maybe-red-maybe-blue superposition until they're measured. That's like having a sniffer dog at the post office that flags half of all things with red paint and a quarter of all things with blue paint as needing to be diverted to the police magically redirect three eighths of each colour instead of different amounts of the two colours. The balls didn't decide which was red and which was blue until the boxes were opened, but the choice always matches.

The US government asked the big ISPs how much it would take to wire everyone up to high-speed Internet, then passed a bill to give them a ludicrous lump sum to do so (IIRC it was hundreds of billions). The money was split between dividends, buying up other companies, and suing the federal government for attempting to ask for the thing they'd paid for, and in the end, the government gave up. That left loads of people with no high-speed Internet, and the ISPs able to afford to buy out anyone who attempted to provide a better or cheaper service. Years down the line, once someone with silly amounts of money for a pet project and a fleet of rockets appeared, there was an opportunity for them to provide a product to underserved customers who could subsidise the genuinely impossible-to-run-a-cable-to customers.

If the US had nearly-ubiquitous high-speed terrestrial Internet, there wouldn't have been enough demand for high-speed satellite Internet to justify making Starlink. I think this is what the other commenter was alluding to.

That was basically because you could die from pretending to do it. The challenge was to eat a laundry pod. That's really obviously not safe, but biting a laundry pod and spitting it out after pretending to swallow and die for the camera seemed like a reasonable way to freak people out while skipping the dangerous part to a handful of teenagers. The biting step was the real dangerous one, though, as concentrated laundry detergent can corrode tongues and throats and windpipes really quickly, and you'd lose the capacity to decide what to swallow, what to inhale, and what to hold in your mouth and spit out within seconds. This kills the teenager. The news generally reported this as Teenager dies attempting Tide Pod Challenge instead of Teenager dies attempting to fake Tide Pod Challenge, which didn't tell teenagers it wasn't safe to pretend to do, but did make pretending to do it seem like a better prank, so overall only made it more tempting.

It also doesn't help that once you've paid the large fee for the Pro version, it doesn't actually guarantee any support if you encounter a bug. You get access to a different issue tracker, and might get a Unity employee to confirm that the bug exists after a couple of months (and maybe close it as a duplicate, then reopen it as not a duplicate when the fix for the other bug doesn't help, then reclose it as a duplicate when it turns out the fix for the other bug also doesn't fix the other bug, and at the end of a multi-month process, there still being a bug with no indication an engineer's looked at it).

Anyway, I'm glad to no longer be working for a company that uses Unity.

Either:

• They're in denial that this happens (arguably, it didn't happen, as eventually Tesco lost, and they wouldn't know about it in the three years Tesco was winning because The Telegraph/Mail etc. wouldn't report on that).
• They think worse things would always happen under other systems (e.g. everyone would be a slave of the state and go to gulag if they complained about anything).
• They don't see it as an inherent problem with capitalism (e.g. simply make doing this illegal, and refuse to let business lobby to reverse the decision, and everything's fine).
• They think this is a good thing (e.g. the fired workers will be incentivised to work harder, then earn a payrise, and use the extra 10p an hour to start a competing multibillion pound supermarket chain).

Bungalow. I don't think you'll find many in London.

It's easy to get pressured into thinking it's your responsibility. There's also the risk that an unhappy company will make a non-copyleft clone of your project, pump resources into it until it's what everyone uses by default, and then add proprietary extensions so no one uses the open-source version anymore, which, if you believe in the ideals of Free Software, is a bad thing.

There was an EU-wide one that gota lot of its funding redirected to AI stuff recently that you might be thinking of.

A rusty crowbar is also red because of the iron atoms that compose it, but it's not mansplaining to take issue with someone telling people they're eating crowbars.

That's more likely to be the tool assuming it's running on a case-insensitive filesystem than it is Windows breaking anything. If you mount networked storage running on a case-sensitive machine, that's something that's worked fine in Windows for a very long time.

In the UK, you're not meant to get within 6ft of a bike when you're overtaking it (although it's pretty common for drivers to get muddled and think that rule's talking about inches). That means it's not safe to overtake if there are oncoming vehicles in the opposite lane or solid white lines in the middle of the road. Another bike a metre or so from the first one doesn't change that if you've got to cross into the opposite lane anyway, and it's better if they're two abrest as you don't need to be in the opposite lane for as long.

There are plenty of idiot cyclists who endanger themselves, but there are also plenty of drivers who accuse people of being idiot cyclists when they're following The Highway Code to the letter.

Personally, I can ignore the effects of artificial sweeteners on insulin levels as they, like everything else, have no effect, and my insulin levels are only affected by when I inject it. I'm type 1 diabetic. When people make incorrect claims based on effects that aren't reproducible or weren't statistically significant in the first place about the safety of sweeteners, it causes direct problems for me. I've had bartenders mess up my blood sugar levels by lying about serving diet drinks because they think they're dangerous. Plus, if the people who push for artificial sweeteners to be banned had their way, there are plenty of things I couldn't ever eat or drink again.

Aspartame is very mildly carcinogenic. An equivalent amount of sugar is much more carcinogenic, and is harmful in other ways, too. If you have to have a can of cola, diet is the healthier choice.

No, that is an entirely unrelated bad decision. It being okay to not have a popup to opt out of secure boot when it does its one job and notices you're about to run insecure code in kernel mode doesn't make every other user-hostile thing Microsoft ever does magically okay.

It's upstream GRUB that's decided the older GRUB versions are insecure and not to be trusted. Microsoft just propagated that to machines running distros that weren't shipping patched GRUB builds yet. Up-to-date Debian wouldn't be affected provided that they downstreamed fixes quickly.

https://fedia.io/m/linux@lemmy.ml/t/1111595/-/comment/6916699 says that Debian's GRUB wasn't affected, but another part of the boot sequence was.

You can't trust users to make informed decisions about cybersecurity as most users don't have the necessary background knowledge, so won't think beyond this popup is annoying me and has a button to make it go away and I am smart and therefore immune to malware. Microsoft don't want Windows to have the reputation for being infested with malware like it used to have, and users don't want their bank details stolen. If something's potentially going to be a bad idea, it's better to only give the decision to people capable of making it an informed decision. That's why we don't let children opt into surgery or decide whether to have ice cream for dinner, and have their parents decide instead.

The comment you're quoting was replying to someone suggesting a warning popup, and saying it would be a bad idea, rather than suggesting the secure boot UEFI option should be taken away. You need at least a little bit more awareness of the problem to know to toggle that setting.

Minoxidil is produced in 5% concentration creams and foams, and that study is comparing rosemary oil to a 2% preparation. It's impressive that rosemary oil is comparable at all, but obviously if you're not taking a therapeutic dose of Monoxidil, it's not going to work properly.

I use topical Minoxidil. It's clearly made some difference, replacing a bald patch with a thin patch, and making my scalp noticeably warmer to the touch due to the extra bloodflow. It wasn't the brilliant instantaneous wonderdrug some people told me it would be, nor totally ineffectual like others said, so I guess it's something whose efficacy varies from person to person.

But it does mean you can spend forty hours a week or thereabouts putting effort into a particular goal and maintaining the knowledge, skills and experience to keep doing it to a high standard without having to sink time and effort into something else in order to get paid enough to live on.

Those forks aren't maintaining Firefox itself, just their own modifications. If a bug is found in Firefox, the LibreWolf team don't have to fix it themselves, they can wait for Mozilla to do it, and incorporate the fix once it materialises. There are forks that diverge further, but they either get quickly abandoned after their creator realises how much of a headache maintenance will be, or they're left with gaping security holes.

When the internet was becoming a world-changing technology, there weren't thirty years of websites to keep working and malware to protect from, web standards were far simpler, and a much higher proportion of users were enthusiasts who were excited by anything they could get and didn't mind if things were rough around the edges. Similarly, two brothers could make the world's first aircraft that flew under its own power, and yet with the combined might of everyone working for Boeing, people are worried about airliner doors falling off and an eight-day space trip has become an eight-month one. Mature technologies need a lot more effort to build and maintain than emerging ones.

UX isn't universal. What intuitively clicks for one person might be unusable for someone else. Good UX is adequate for as many people as possible, but it can't be perfect for everyone at once when some people work best with large labelled buttons with big, clear icons that have to go into submenus to fit on the screen, and other people prefer lots of small buttons whose purpose and location they've memorised which all fit on screen at once to save them needing to click into submenus.

Maintaining a web browser in the 2020s is an expensive thing to do. You need full time employees who specialise in all the systems that make up a browser, and can't leave security-critical parts like ensuring the integrity of the JavaScript sandbox to volunteer hobbyists. It's far from the only thing Mozilla spend money on, so if they need to mage cost savings, it won't necessarily stop them being able to maintain Firefox, but another organisation picking it up if they do stop isn't likely.

Yep, I've since looked it up, and it's apparently the most malleable metal, with Silver coming second. To be fair, Lead is pretty malleable, too, and you can leave bite marks in it if you put it in your mouth.

A lot of the comments are making the assumption that the buttons are telling the truth about being different sizes, but I've flushed plenty of toilets where both buttons do a full flush. If you can't tell the difference after experimenting, it might just be broken or cheap tat.

You can bite into lead. You can't bite into gold, silver and bronze. That's why it used to be a test for fake coins. If the chips are bite marks, the metal's really low grade. Biting into Gold and Silver is even easier.

Innocent until proven guilty is a mantra used when determining if the state can deploy violence and curtail your liberties, e.g. by physically confining you in a prison. It's not a universally applicable rule, and isn't what's used in civil court, where judgements are made on balance of probabilities (i.e. if they think the evidence suggests it's more likely that you've done something than that you haven't) and isn't what's used in contexts other than the legal system, like when a duty of care exists - generally it wouldn't be enough to say someone was safe to work with children if they were only probably not a paedophile.

It's my understanding that there isn't enough knowledge available to the public to exhonorate Snoop Dogg, and without that, he's left looking sketchier than he was before. One dropped allegation could be nothing, or the start of a pattern, and that's different to there being no allegations at all.

You can't really find out of you'll get good enough to enjoy a soulslike without buying one and playing it for longer than the two hour refund period. For other products, you usually have something you can do about it or some way to try it first. You don't need to buy a kayak to find out you don't like kayaking as you can go for a kayaking lesson first and use the venue's equipment. It's understandable that people who hit a wall and can never get any enjoyment from a soulslike will be upset that it cost them just as much to find that out as it costs someone who'll compete the game and have a great time.

Maybe it's enough to just do the refund window based on progression rather than time.

Regarding the elf slavery, there's a guest post on Rowling's blog (which she must at least have approved even though she didn't write it) that makes the case that Hermione was wrong to attempt to liberate the elves because the elves enjoyed being slaves, and the point of that subplot was to demonstrate that it's bad when people attempt to solve other people's problems without a request for help and bad when people get offended on other people's behalf. A normal person wouldn't let something advocating for such a major misunderstanding of their work on their blog, especially if it was claiming they were pro-slavery.

Most people reading the books would interpret it as implying Hermione was right, but for someone who's seen that blog post on Rowling's site and thinks she read it before it was published and could have vetoed it, it's not a leap to read it again and conclude that it was meant to be pro-slavery and that's why the other main characters, who you're usually supposed to identify with, make fun of Hermione.

On its own, it's simplest to say it just wasn't thought through, but when it's part of a pattern of off-colour opinions, it's harder to give the benefit of the doubt.

Is that enough to mitigate how much worse bare Google is than it was ten years ago, back when they were winning against SEO bots? In my experience, it hasn't been, but I've not done enough AI-aided web searches to have a good sample size.

If you give a chip more voltage, its transistors will switch faster, but they'll degrade faster. Ideally, you want just barely enough voltage that everything's reliably finished switching and all signals have propagated before it's time for the next clock cycle, as that makes everything work and last as long as possible. When the degradation happens, at first it means things need more voltage to reach the same speed, and then they totally stop working. A little degradation over time is normal, but it's not unreasonable to hope that it'll take ten or twenty years to build up enough that a chip stops working at its default voltage.

The microcode bug they've identified and are fixing applies too much voltage to part of the chip under specific circumstances, so if an individual chip hasn't experienced those circumstances very often, it could well have built up some degradation, but not enough that it's stopped working reliably yet. That could range from having burned through a couple of days of lifetime, which won't get noticed, to having a chip that's in the condition you'd expect it to be in if it was twenty years old, which still could pass tests, but might keel over and die at any moment.

If they're not doing a mass recall, and can't come up with a test that says how affected an individual CPU has been without needing to be so damaged that it's no longer reliable, then they're betting that most people's chips aren't damaged enough to die until the after warranty expires. There's still a big difference between the three years of their warranty and the ten to twenty years that people expect a CPU to function for, and customers whose parts die after thirty-seven months will lose out compared to what they thought they were buying.

There's functionally no enforcement of what was formerly the EU working time directive being voluntary to opt out of. If a company wants you to sign (and in some fields, they will, even if they've got no reason to) they can always pretend to have found some other reason not to hire you.

I think the tolerance on LEGO was about the feature size of a Pentium II or Pentium III last I checked, which is ludicrous considering it's moulded plastic.

It wasn't me who you replied to originally - I agree that it's most likely AMD are just being super cautious given historically how many times bad news for their competitors has been falsely equated by the press as equivalent to a minor issue they've had, and the delay moving things after the microcode update and therefore making launch-day benchmarking more favourable is just a bonus.

You've misunderstood. The original release date was set, then Intel announced the microcode update, which was after the original release date, then AMD announced that they'd be delaying the release date, and that new release date is after the microcode update.

Yes. Every time, it's gone less well than opening a banana from the stem end, unless the banana was horrendously underripe. I've never had the problem the alternative approach is claiming to fix unless I've intentionally opened the banana badly on purpose to prove a point about the problem really being people opening from the stem end incompetently.

A) The peel becomes easier to tear faster than the inside gets softer. You don't need to snap it, it doesn't need nearly enough tension to count as a snap once it's ripe.

B) The banana's been selectively bred to want to be as delicious as possible. It only wants you to be happy.

Bananas are the way they are through millenia of selective breeding, so there's no reason to think that monkeys know anything we don't. If pinching the bottom is easier than bending the stem, your banana isn't ripe yet and doesn't want to be eaten until later.

Note: this technique cannot be transferred to single-player games. I have tested the hypothesis thoroughly.

Mono died because Microsoft bought it out and used parts of it along with parts of regular .NET to make the modern cross-platform MIT-licenced .NET implementation that's used both on Windows and elsewhere. There's no need for an open source third party .NET implementation if the first party one is already open source.