Also, it’s not clear if those claims are still real, because you can only run Oracle databases if you sign a contract saying you won’t compare it to other systems.

What the hell?? That can't possibly be legal/enforceable, can it?

Oh yeah, you can quickly charge them that way if you don't have a cable handy!

That won't work. How are you supposed to draw the line between what is/isn't spyware? Inevitably, MS would say, "we don't consider this to be telemetry/spyware/etc." and users will disagree, and MS will tell them to shove it.

Besides, Google has all of the shit that's mentioned and gamers/developers don't care, so I doubt it would make any difference at all. The fact is, Windows is a garbage system to develop for. Linux is the best system to use for deployments, Windows will never come close, and that's ultimately what's going to decide where developers go. And gamers are too niche for MS to care. The dominoes will really start falling when business customers start switching to Linux en masse.

And this is inevitable. When it comes to business use, open systems always win in the end.

It's the central foundation of his inferiority complex.

So it will be 11 vs. 22? Or will there be three nets on the field in a triangle?

There are a lot of reasons, but culture is definitely high among them. China has spent a lot of time and money over the years trying to improve their football presence but it hasn't been working at all.

https://www.dw.com/en/china-pivots-football-focus-from-mens-to-womens-game/a-63763569

https://www.dw.com/en/how-china-wants-to-become-a-football-heavyweight/a-63652825

It starts with a paradox - if light has no rest mass, how can it be affected by gravity? Gravity does not exert a force on massless objects.

The answer is that mass warps the fabric of spacetime around it. As the fabric is warped/bent by massive objects, light travels along these bends. This is why gravitational lensing occurs for example - distant galaxies warp spacetime, so light traveling around them gets bent back toward itself. We can use this to see distant objects in the cosmos that would otherwise be too faint to detect.

We don't feel the effect because it's very small, however we can detect it. Some atomic clocks are so incredibly sensitive that they can detect just a few meters' difference in altitude from the surface of the earth.

Additionally, time dilations due to height differences of less than one metre have been experimentally verified in the laboratory.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation?useskin=vector

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192720

Peppu

Sounds like something really shitty...

I wonder which has killed more people though...?

It takes a long time to learn how to code (5-10 years I would say), and learning multiple languages will only make you a better programmer. Besides, you're just starting out and have no idea how far you're going to get... I personally failed the first few times I tried and didn't really catch on until I was in university. Start with something easy, maybe learn something useful, then try a harder one. Starting with a harder language just increases the probability that you find it too hard and give up. And plenty of people start with easy languages and still fail anyway, so don't take success for granted, even with an "easy" language.

In any case, code is just a tool to get a job done, so I would say start with finding a job that you want to do and then learn the coding you need to accomplish it. I personally learned how to code by using Python instead of a calculator for my science and engineering assignments in university. Besides that, it's a great language for general purpose tasks on Linux/UNIX systems - you can use it for file sharing, task automation, writing chatbots, etc.

Writing games is another good source of motivation - you could use Pygame in Python, which has lots of tutorials that you could play around with. There's also Godot too - you could just start by following the tutorial and playing around with some of the scripts to see what they do.

I love DDG, mostly because you can tell it's a company that's actually trying to be what its users want. No AI? Fine. No JS? Also fine. Want to use POST instead of GET so your search queries don't show up in your browsing history? You can even do that.

For the longest time, tech companies have had that attitude they should be able to dictate how you use their service, rather than providing the kind of service that you, the user, want.

It's refreshing at least one company that's finally bucking that trend.

Companies want unbounded exponential profits. Now guess where those profits are coming from.

It should be noted that a lot of companies audit security software like this and attest that the implementation is secure and safe to use.

I'm curious if Microsoft did the same for their encryption scheme and if so, who they hired. Because anyone who did attest to the security of this component is likely compromised as well.

I'm asking out of genuine ignorance here, but... don't you have to distribute it?

A lot of people have asked in the past, why can't we just cover the Sahara Desert in solar panels, and my understanding is that it's because you can't get all of that power where it needs to go. So the installments have to be distributed geographically, not all in one place, no?

4 commits

Hypocrite.

Yeah, this should definitely not be allowed. Google should not be allowed to dictate which operating systems people are allowed to use. And no doubt that this is harmful to many European companies and prevents competition in the space of mobile operating systems.

That said, it remains to be seen if anything will get done about it.

Agreed, they probably are cheap garbage (I myself don't know, I haven't driven cars regularly in a while), but two things:

1. Manufacturing volume is really important in making cars. You need know-how, you need experts and ways to make things better and deliver incremental improvements, and that becomes a lot easier when you have higher volumes.

2. People don't have lots of cash to burn these days - quality is easy to sacrifice when you don't have the cash to pay up.

Ease of adoption, if I'm not mistaken (so I was told 20-ish years ago when I started learning C++). Think back to the early/mid '90s - there was a lot of existing C code out there back then, people really didn't want to throw it away but had few options if they wanted to use something else. C compatibility offered a way for large companies to incrementally adopt C++. All you had to do was change your compiler and your existing C code would compile, and you could write new stuff in C++. In the mean time, other languages could only leverage that existing code by using message passing or FFI-like frameworks. For example, you would have to use JNI if you were writing Java I think - maybe there were other options, but it was a big pain to deal with at the time, especially since tooling was probably not as polished back then.

Maybe it's not as much of an issue today, but they have to maintain compatibility with earlier versions, so while it helped adoption a lot, it also is a big challenge for the language and its ability to move forward.

Well it's about time we fix that, isn't it?