Posts by eldakka

Humongous 52-inch Dell monitor will make you feel like king of the internet with four screens in one

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 is Curved

Higher density displays are more expensive to make, therefore they tend to target them at more premium audiences.

Adding $200 to an $1800 laptop is a minor increase (amd they still usually offer the lower-resolution $1800 laptop if you don't want to lash out the extra $200) to ther overall price, thus usually more palatable or considered a 'worthwhile' upgade - only 11% more! .

But adding $200 to a $150-$300 24" screen is usually a non-starter for the majority of people who only want to put down $200 on a display, doubling or more than doubling the price. People willing to put $500+ down on a monitor tend to be people who'd like a bigger monitor anyway - at least as a proportion of the market.

Re: Dell UltraSharp 52 is Curved

Missing from the article is that the monitor is curved.

LTT did a sponsored video on this also, and, taking what they say with a mountain of salt because it is sponsored, they stated the curve was pretty subtle.

I have a subtly curved 35" ultrawide, and I do prefer that subtle curve to a completely flat (or steeper curve!) monitor of the same size.

But it is a personal taste thing, YMMV.

Re: Nah, I'll take the bezels

Oh, wait, maybe that’s some old-fashioned imperial measurement, that most of the world doesn’t understand well

Quite right!.

As per the Reg's own standard units, it is actually 0.1903 Adult Badgers, or 0.0011 Skateboarding Rhinoceri.

Brit lands invite-only Aussie visa after uncovering vuln in government systems

Re: Government wishful thinking

Nobel Prize winners sounds great until you realise that almost all winners are rewarded for work done decades earlier. If the Aussie government were able to promise significant funding over a significant period they might get one or two.

Whatever the duration between receiving the Nobel and the work it was granted for is irrelevant. Having a Nobel winner (excluding the irrelevant politically selected 'Peace' one) on staff gives esteem to the institution they are working for (ok, yes, even the Peace Nobel, despite the disdain I hold it in, many others don't and it can have pulbic relations value). This leads to an increase in the number and quality of people who want to work at the same institution that has a Nobel winner on staff, thus attracting high-quality applicants to go to the country. So even if the work they did for a Noble was 50 years ago, and the prize was awarded 30 years ago, are you saying that an institution and host country that had, say, Roger Penrose as a Dean or other Professorship/post-grad advisor wouldn't attract larger numbers of highly skilled and qualified academics/researchers?

Further more, I'm sure many winners who are still active in their fields would be surprised by the disdain you seem to hold them in. Just because their most productive years might be over doesn't mean their output is no longer relevant, significant or valued. The smartest people in the world running at 66% efficiency relative to their heyday are still amongst the sdmartest people in the world. And they have a lot of experience and built-up knowledge.

Olympic gold medallists, likewise, have already reached the peak of their game. By the time they've gained nationality and served whatever eligibility period before the IoC allow them to compete for Australia they'll be past it.

Who said anything about them being able to compete for Australia? Again, like Nobel laureates, they bring prestige and thus attract more people who could be considered future Olympic-level athletes. They still have much value to contribute, coaches, managers, development-program managers/designers, advisors, inspirations for others. Heroes (colloquially speaking, I don't regrard Gold-medallists as literal heroes) are often most valuable as inspirations, people to be looked up to, emulated, than they do for the actual event they did that gave them their acclaim.

Recipients of national research grants will presumably not be able to bring their grant with them so face the decision of giving up their grant and moving to Australia with no guarantee they will get similar funding, or perhaps just staying where they are.

Yet again, you miss the point. All of the above applies. The fact they got such a grant is indicative of how valuable they are whether or not they bring the grant with them. And if nothing else, attracting them to Australia deprives their orignating country of their expertise, which would be a worthy goal in and of itself if the source country is a a competitor in that particular research field let alone an unfriendly or even hostile country.

IPv6 just turned 30 and still hasn’t taken over the world, but don't call it a failure

"These days the Domain Name Service (DNS) is the service selector, not the IP address," Huston told The Register. "The entire security framework of today's Internet is name based and the world of authentication and channel encryption is based on service names, not IP addresses."

My reaction to that statement:

It’s not DNS

There’s no way it’s DNS

It was DNS

Coming Wi-Fi 8 will bring reliability rather than greater speed

Re: the Teams session automatically transfers back to the PC

> Which has meanwhile been stolen, you foolishly having left it unattended...

Nah, the computers still there, shame about the RAM though ...

Re: WAN speed anyone?

Selective and misleading quoting, the full quote says (emphasis mine):

Cordeiro says that Intel sees Wi-Fi 8 as the "connective technology for the AI era," one where in the not-too-distant future, everyone will have massive amounts of compute and storage available to them over the network, and this means that you can't allow the wireless connection to become the bottleneck to accessing all those resources.

The goal is to prevent WiFi from being the bottleneck in the coming years if/when Internet connectivity speeds improve.

1 Gbps allows good connectivity to that compute on the WAN/Internet. However, for some reason most people seem to equate LAN with WiFi because most people seem to use WiFi rather than cabled LAN. How often do you see instructions that say "to connect this thing to your network, go to your WiFi router ...." - the assumption being that you are using WiFi. The upshot is that it seems most people use WiFi as the standard connectivity between their devices and their LAN and out to the wider WAN/Internet. Therefore the WiFi bottleneck becomes a serious constraint when you consider it's seeming to becoming the standard LAN setup (not sure why, I use CAT5/6 for most of my computers, WiFi is a convenience for say phones or when I/m wandering around the house with a lapttop - couch to kitchen to porch to bed, but once I 'settle' in somewhere I'll plug in a network cable). Therefore improving reliability of WiFi is a reasonable goal to me (despite for me WiFi is a fallback, not the main connectivity method, but I understand that how I do things isn't the way others do things and I may now be in a fading minority who prefers cabled connections).

The other thing you are missing is that many corporates are starting to use WiFi much more. My work (~15000 people) recently went to hotdesking and assigning everyone laptops. And the default/expected connectivity is using the corporate WiFi. Sure, you can plug in the network patch the replaced desktops use(ed) - and I try to do this where relatively easy - but I've found many hotdesks haven't bothered to plug the dock into the LAN, they all seem happy using the corporate WiFi rather than cabled. And many corporates have better than your 1Gbps connectivity to the internet, and that's not even mentioning the multiple multi-gigabit connections to our datacentres and their mainframes and server farms.

UK plans right for flat owners to demand gigabit broadband

Re: Real Estate tenure in the UK…

No, there are plenty of leases in Australia.

There is no freehold in the ACT. In the ACT leasehold is the only possibility. The ACT government owns all the non-national-park land and only makes it available under a 99-year Crown lease.

The future of long-term data storage is clear and will last 14 billion years

"The technology can store up to 360 TB of data on a 5-inch glass platter."

That's nearly big enough to store my porn collection!

Campaigners urge EU to mandate 15 years of OS updates

> Hey, remember when Windows 10 was going to be the last version of Windows? No? Neither does Microsoft.

That has never been a position adopted officially by Microsoft. It was never a position stated by anyone senior enough at Microsoft to announce such a thing.

A Microsoft "development evangelist" stated it at a conference. Once.

Even the Ars article you refer to signs off with

For the time being, of course, Microsoft is sticking with Windows 10. It'll be the last version of Windows, right up until the marketers think it's time for a new version.

IETF Draft suggests making IPv6 standard on DNS resolvers - partly to destroy IPv4

That's pretty nice, I didn't know that (not being a network engineer or anything why would i?).

Thanks.

Linux is about to lose a feature – over a personality clash

Re: Justice for bcachefs!

> is as much a "simple solution" and so divorced from the behaviour we'd get if ZFS did the re-striping itself* that you may as well say we don't need ZFS to do snapshots for us, we could write our own simple script to, ooh, create a new overlay/passthrough file system, change all the mount points, halt all processes with writable file handles open... (yes, yes, I'm being hyperbolic).

I never said it shouldn't be something ZFS does transparently. I never said it would be a bad idea or unnecessary thing for ZFS to support.

I was merely pointing out that it is a fairly simple thing to work around such that maybe the unpaid ZFS devs feel they have more important things to work on for now. I mean, it's taken the best part of 20 years to even get the ability to expand a RAIDZ vdev at all.

I'll also say that if anyone actually cares about the filesystem they are using, making conscious decisions to choose a filesystem like ZFS or whatever, then they are not a typical average user. Typical average users don't create ZFS arrays of multiple disks in various raidz/mirror volumes and then grow them. That is not the use-case of an average user.

Later (below) you say "production-ready", why are you messing around with growing raidz vdevs and wanting to re-stripe them to distribute across the array? That is a hobbyist/homelab-type situation. If you are using ZFS in a production environment - that is revenue/income is tied to it - then the answer is to create a new raidz and migrate (zfs-send/receive) data to it. No messing about with growing raidz vdevs and re-striping the data, that's just totally unnecessary.

> e.g. 'beneath' the user file access level with no possibility of access control issues,

If you run the mv and cp as root, then there will be no access control issues, cp -p (as root) will preserve file permissions and FACLs.

> not risking problems when changing your simplistic commands into production-ready "appropriate check/tests etc" like status reports, running automatically, maybe even backing off when there is a momentary load increase so the whole server isn't bogged down as the recursive cp

If you system gets bogged down from doing a single file copy, then I think you have a system problem.

> chews the terabytes,

Why would it chew terabytes? Unless you have TB-sized files, it won't. Recursive doesn't mean what I think you think it means. It does not mean "in parallel". The example I gave will work on a single file at a time in a serial process, and will not move onto the next file until the current file is complete (tehniically it won't move on at all, it's the inner part of a loop you'd need to feed a file list to it). Therefore no extra space beyond the size of the currently being worked on file is needed.

> not risking losing track when your telnet into the server shell dies

Why would that do anything? At worst you'll have a single $i.tmp file that you might have to manually do the cp back to the original ($i) name. There will be no data loss (and especially not if you snapshot it first). And even if you 'lose track', just start again, no biggie, will just take longer as you're redoing some of the already done work.

And as I said, you can use things like rsync instead, which would give you the ability to 'keep track' instead. The command I pasted was just the simplest one to give an idea of what is needed, just making a new copy of the file will re-stripe it across the full raidz. Or if you have your pool split up into many smaller filesystems rather than just a single one for the entire pool, then you can zfs-send/receive the filesystem to a enw filesystem in the same pool then use "zfs set mountpoint=<oldmountpoint>) to give the new filesystem the same mountpoint as the old one, then delete the old one.

> (not risking a brainfart and doing all that copying over the LAN and back again!) - and simply being accessible to Joe Bloggs ZFS user who just would like it all to work, please.

I agree, it would be. But it doesn't. I'm pointing out that there is a solution to the issue the poster I am replying to mentioned. It is annoying to have to do (I've done it when I changed the recordsize of my filesystems), but it can be done, and it's not particularly difficult.

If someone is going to choose something like ZFS, I'd expect them to be able to do internet searches on topics like this and get help from technical forums or various guides that people have written to cover this sort of use-case. There are guides and instructions on how to do this sort of thing.

Re: Justice for bcachefs!

Not properly, it doesn't re-stripe the existing data like mdadm or btrfs, it just evens out the disk usage.

A 3 disk raid5 expanded to 5 will inherit the same 50% parity overhead for existing data,

And that can be solved by a simple mv and copy back the file. e.g.

mv $i $i.tmp && cp -p $i.tmp $i && rm $i.tmp

Stick that (or your own preference, using rsync for example) in a simple script/find command to recurse it (with appropriate checks/tests etc.), and that'll make the 'old' data stripe 'properly' across the full RAID width.

Nvidia and AMD reportedly chipping in to Washington’s coffers with 15 percent fee for China sales

Re: Where does this "fee" go?

> Federal funds or party coffers?

Federal funds, minus, of course, the finders fee of 95%, which goes to an incredibly sane business man.

First release candidate of systemd 258 is here

Re: What?

(3) AFAIK, not possible under Unix and Linux: file access permissions granted to specific users, as is possible under Novell Directory Services, and possibly (IDK) under Microsoft Active Directory. This is an administrative nightmare when a person is suspended from their job in Department A, but still works for Department B.

Of course you can , facls.

Google’s Gemini refuses to play Chess against the mighty Atari 2600 after realizing it can't match ancient console

Re: Over-confidence

> Why is it that the LLMs give an impression of confidence at first contact, and only move on to something that appears more nuanced when their inevitable shortcomings are pointed out?

Following the same playbook as the Post Office was with the Horizon scandal. As was brought out in testimony with Paula Vennells regarding a meeting she had with the minister where her briefing notes followed the same pattern (my summary) -

1) only volunteer this set of information to the minister

2) if the minister presses, then you can admit this additional set of facts,

3) if the minister continues to push hard for more, then here is yet a 3rd set of facts you can present.

With the priceless addition that when the chair of the inquiry asked "why" this obfuscation/escalation process, Paula was literally speechless and unable to answer., and looked a complete fool.

A software-defined radio can derail a US train by slamming the brakes on remotely

Re: FRED only

I think it's already been de-railed ...

Double-detonation supernova could explain why the universe is full of candles

Re: oddly

Integral? Do we really need to bring Calculus into this?

Re: oddly

's/neutron star/white dwarf/g'

Re: oddly

> It is a white dwarf but identifies as a red dwarf.

You mnean a very short ginger?

Xlibre fork lights a fire under long-dormant X.org development

Re: I still like the principle of X

> And maybe, FINALLY, a free fully functional X-Server for Windows, relatively easy to install.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but there is a fuly functional free X-server for windows availabe via Cygwin.

Firefox is dead to me – and I'm not the only one who is fed up

Re: Vivaldi

It does exactly what it's name implies, presents the tab list as a nested tree of tabs (e.g. like a directory tree in a file browser).

Tree Style Tab

> Vivaldi technologies has about 60 employees to maintain and develop their entirely competent browser.

Sure, if you ignore the hundreds of developers who work on the upstream chromium engine they use.

Re: Vivaldi

I used Vivaldi for a while when it first came out, but lack of Tree-Style-Tabs (TST) reverted me back to Firefox.

I tried requesting that Vivaldi implement TST-style tab systems, but in threads about it a Vivaldi dev would always demand a detailed explanation of why we (TST users) use TST and prefer it over the tab-grouping features.

Vivaldi are free to implement or not implement any feature, but as TST is a personal preference, I can't give a clear explanation of why or why not I prefer it over other mechanisms. And that's exactly what a personal preference is, something usually logically unexplainable, and the frequent demands for such explanation from its users who have that preference - and the un-substantiated defences that tab-groups were superior and we should be using that instead - drove me away from Vivaldi.

Ship abandoned off Alaska after electric cars on board catch fire

Re: Since the Felicity Ace

> currently resides at the bottom of the Atlantic any "allegations" that its fire was started by an EV are pure speculation.

Car-carriers are designed in such a way that each deck can be isolated form other decks and within the decks are compartments to isolate parts of the deck. They carry CO2 with which to flood such isolated decks in the case of a fire (though not enough to flood all compartments, but several of them),

If the fire was from a hydro-carbon-based source, then isolating the compartment with the fire and the ones around it and flooding those with CO2 should put out the fire.

The fact that this tactic didn't work is pretty good evidence that the fire was a fire that produces its own oxygen, and the most likely source for that is an EV battery fire. Therefore it is less speculation and more deduction that it was caused by an EV fire.

Ukraine strikes Russian bomber-maker with hack attack

Re: Thank goodness

> and we had not broken agreements on neutrality and NATO expansion.

The thing you are forgetting is that NATO didn't expand.

Those former eastern-block (and now after Russia's own actions the centuries-long neutral Sweden) countries were so afraid of Russia coming and doing exactly what they are doing in Ukraine to them that they begged NATO to accept them. NATO didn't expand. NATO didn't go to those countries and force them or even ask them to join NATO. No. Russia forced those countries to join NATO for their own self-preservation. All the countries who've joined NATO since 1991 have done so at their own request - no, near-on demands - they be let in, not NATO's.

And those countries were right. The 2 invasions of Ukraine in the last decade (the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and the 2022 war Russia started) along with the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 all demonstrate that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Only someone deluded or a paid shill would state otherwise.

Judge puts two-week pause on Trump's mass government layoffs

Re: And when the government ignore the ruling ...

> A few minions inside for contempt of court? Harrison Fields called the judge's decision a "bogus order". That sounds contemptuous.

Contempt of court is just another court ruling, If they are ignoring other rulings, what makes you think they wouldn't ignore a contempt ruling?

The courts have no ability to enforce their decisions. They have no 'physical' arm to conduct enforcement. They rely on the DoJ for that 'physical' enforcement of theur rulings - to follow their rulings and order the various law-enforcement agencies (FBI, Marshall's, etc) to do the enforcing. So if the DoJ ignores their orders, there is nothing Judges can do to enforce them apart from issue yet more orders that will be ignored by the DoJ.

This is why it's all such a problem, in the end court rulings depend on the Executive Government Agencies to enforce any rulings. And if those agencies don't honour their constitutional duty to do so, there is nothing the courts can do about it in a physical sense.

UK Ministry of Defence is spending less with US biz, and more with Europeans

Re: Logistics is the real killswitch

Saab has to get permission for FMS of the Gripen from the US as it stands today. So they are not unconditionally licensed.

Does the failure of the Gripen in Colombia foreshadow a shift in the United States' defense export strategy?

Things seemed to be going well for the Swedish single-engine fighter until a few weeks ago, when the new US administration of Donald Trump refused to grant Stockholm a re-export license for the General Electric F414 turbojet that powers the Swedish fighter, while Washington is now deploying a wealth of pressure and coercion to force Bogota to turn to the F-16V.

The JAS 39 Gripen Fighter Has 1 Problem It Never Saw Coming

Despite being a capable and cost-effective fighter, the Saab JAS 39 Gripen has faced limited export success, often losing competitions to US aircraft like the F-16 and F-35.

-This analysis, citing historical examples (a blocked Viggen sale to India) and recent lost bids (Slovakia, Bulgaria, Czechia), argues US influence significantly hinders Gripen sales.

...

“The pressure that the U.S. can bring to bear in these situations is just too much to overcome in many instances,” the same Saab spokesperson said. “We have more than one time seen that the final decision on the sale of a Gripen to an export customer is a decision that is made in Washington. They often get to decide whether or not we will be ‘allowed’ to make a deal with one nation or another. The nation actually buying the airplane gets out-voted.”

And many other similar articles.

Re: Logistics is the real killswitch

I doubt that was ever feasible. Europe's total fast jet count is around 1,700, but roughly half of that is recent aircraft (inc a few F35), but it would never be feasible that Europe would order more than say 600-800 F35. Taiwan, Japan, Australia, Canada aren't going to take more than a few dozen (ignoring any possible cancellations). Not seeing a big queue of remaining countries available to pay the asking price. So I'm seeing total international sales at around 1,000.

Lockheed-Martin aren't idiots, they'd never have planned on 3,000 international sales. Whether the Pentagon were stupid enough is a different question.

While 3,000 was optimistic, that projection would have been based on replacing all of the following aircraft in various friendly countries airforces on a 1:1 basis:

• Rafale
• Typhoon
• F-16
• F-15
• various MiG/Su models still in some ex-Soviet bloc NATO airforces
• Various other older models that where wheezing into the 21st century

They were dreaming if they thought they'd get 1:1 replacements for many of those models, what with the capital and operational cost increases of the F-35, not to mention that as a 'uberfighter', surely you need less of them ? But of course the purveyor of the aircraft, Lockheed-Martin, would put the best 'spin' on it to get the tender.

Also note your estimation of "Taiwan, Japan, Australia, Canada aren't going to take more than a few dozen" is way off.

• Japan: 147
• Canada: 88
• Australia: 72 (with options of increasing that to 100 - it's an ongoing debate)
• South Korea: 85
• Israel: 75
• Taiwan: 0

That's 467 F-35s right there in non-EU countries, not "a few dozen" - before any cancellations take effect that is. But, TBH, Canada is the only 'question-mark' on whether they'll take the F-35, as the other countries on that list have already received at least half their orders, so it's unlikely any of them would back out now. Canada is the only one that hasn't received any F-35s at all, so they are in a position to cancel and go with something else. They (Canada) were seriously considering Gripen at one point, but if the cancellation is to avoid US equipment, Gripen would be off the list as that uses a licensed-built US GE F404/F414G engine. Of the serious gen 4.5+ non-Russia/China combat aircraft, only Eurofighter and Rafale have non-US engines AFAIK (RR/Eurojet and Snecma/Safran respectively).

Using icon as a nuclear mushroom cloud as it seems fitting based on the subject not as the 'Eat This' the caption would suggest. ---->

A big dependency on a US arms firm are the Trident missiles that carry the UK regime's weapons of mass destruction. If they can no longer go back for servicing, then after a while, the PM would be down relying on Yodel to deliver them in the event of WWIII.

That isn't the only option.

They can - if the French are willing - buy French-made SLBM's and do the necessary retrofits to the upcoming Dreadnought-class to take the 'fatter' French SLBMs (Trident is a slimmer missile, and the Dreadnought's are designed to share the SLBM launch modules with the US's forthcoming Ohio replacements, therefore they'd need significant design modifications for the Frech SLBM).

Or they could - again if the French are willing - enter a joint development agreement with the French for the next generation of SLBM's so they can share the same platform.

Or they could develop their own SLBM, although that'd be the least favoured option as it is obviously the most expensive (as they have to foot the NRE's (i.e. RnD, design, testing, tooling) alone) and would probably take the longest amount of time, as they'd be developing an SLBM from scratch with no 'living-memory' skillset of having done so previously.

$16B health dept managed finances with single Excel spreadsheet. It hasn’t gone well

Re: 20 district health boards

So you are saying they use TWO Excel spreadsheets to manage the NHS?

AMD looks to undercut Nvidia, win gamers' hearts with RX 9070 series

Re: Reality

> I tried that. The NPC's sucked.

The PCs are even worse.

Einstein Probe finds two stars that have spent 40 million years taking turns eating each other

Re: Disappointment

> I heard about some stars that emit a lethal jet of radiation through their poles when they go boom, and these were calculated to be lethal for over 1 million LY in the direction they happen to aim.

You are most likley referring to Gamma-Ray bursts (GRBs), but you are off by a couple orders of magnitude. A GRB would most likely have to be within 10,000 LY to be dangerous to the Earth, which basically limits it to having to be within our own galaxy. But since the the events casing GRBs are quite rare (estimated at between 1 in every 10k years and 1 in every 1million years in a galaxy our size) and the jets are tightly focused, you'd be pretty unlucky for a star within 10k LY to be pointing directly at our Solar system when it does go supernova.Which isn't to say it can't or won't, but it is extremely rare and is believed to have happened at least once in our past (4-5 billion years is a long time, long enough for incredibly rare events to have happened a time or 2 or three).

'Key kernel maintainers' still back Rust in the Linux kernel, despite the doubters

Re: If I understand the logic, I understand the reasoning...

> Learning a new language is not that much of a biggie, compared to the technical expertise required to work on a kernel in the first place.

It is entirely unreasonable to demand that people who have worked for decades on a project in C, entirely unpaid, to go and learn Rust because some idealogue said so.

I'm really not sure why you are finding it hard to understand:

Rust in the kernel is not the problem of anyone else than the R4L developers.

It is not the responsibility of any maintainers outside the R4L project to assist with that or enable it in any way.

It is the responsibility of the R4L developers to make Rust work. No-one else. No other maintainer has any obligation or responsibility to assist the R4L project at all.

If the R4L developers want Rust in the kernel, then they need to make it work, not the C maintainers.

As I've seen it mentioned elsewhere, the R4L developers should have just sat down and written a Rust-first clone of the Linux kernel rather then trying to insert Rust into the Linux kernel. Otherewise, the only way I see the Linux kernel being migrated to Rust is when long-time maintainers retire/resign/die/lose interest and get replaced over time with developers who already understand both C and Rust when they come into the projects.

Re: If I understand the logic, I understand the reasoning...

> The difference being? I mean, you can just recompile the Rust code to.

Why would a C developer have the Rust toolchain on their system to do such a recompile? They are C developers, not Rust developers.

Even if a C developer had such a toolchain installed, why would they know how to use it or diagnose (let alone fix) any errors it throw? They are C developers, not Rust developers so they don't have that knowledge.

They are C developers, what happens in Rust-land is none of their care. Apart from the fact that Rust developers are whining on social media about this and whinge that the C-devs that should care and they (the C-devs) need to be responsible to the Rust code, y'know, something the C-devs don't actually care about or have the skillset to do because they aren't - you guessed it - Rust developers.

It's just not their job to care about Rust (because for many of the devs, it's not a job).

'Maybe the problem is you' ... Linus Torvalds wades into Linux kernel Rust driver drama

Re: Fair comment by Linus

It is not the case. The Rust folk are not trying to change ANYTHING in that API.

They are bindings to allow Rust to work with the C API as it is, and to be maintained by Rust devs.

The problem is that these Rust wrappers are being put into the kernel. Therefore if the C API developers change their C API that breaks the Rust wrappers, the kernel will fail to compile because another component in the kernel - the Rust wrappers - are broken now and won't compile. Therefore either the C API developers will have to fix the Rust wrappers themselves to allow a full kernel compilation, or take steps to exclude a part of the kernel - the Rust wrappers - from the kernel to allow their code to compile into the kernel.

And who will the Rust wrapper maintainers blame? They'll blame the C API developers for breaking the Rust wrappers.

DOGE geek with Treasury payment system access now quits amid racist tweet claims

Re: Possible issue.

> Miffed CIA folks may not appreciate these 'cost savings'.

And when the CIA is unhappy, bad things happen to those who make them unhappy (see JFK assassination)

Re: nullllptr has been core dumped

> nullllptr has been core dumped

due to a seg-fault

A good kind of disorder: Boffins boost capacitor tech by disturbing dipoles

Re: Breakdown?

> Of course! How else can you ensure the product breaks exactly a week after the guarantee runs out?

Luckily, depending on your jurisdiction, this may be irrelevant and you may still be covered, for example in Australia, according to the ACCC Broken but out of warranty? Your consumer guarantee rights may still apply (excerpt):

Common statements that may be misleading

Here are some statements to watch out for, and an explanation of what consumers’ rights are.

• Your product is out of warranty, so we can only repair it for a fee.

This isn’t right. Consumer guarantees are automatic and are separate from any voluntary warranty, manufacturer’s warranty, or extended warranty. Consumer rights can last longer than warranty rights, and you can ask for a repair, refund or replacement after the warranty has expired.

• No refunds under any circumstances.

This isn’t right. If your product has a major problem, under the consumer guarantees you have a right to choose a refund.

• To be eligible for a refund, you must return the product within 10 days. Refunds are not available under any circumstances after this time.

This isn’t right. Businesses can’t apply a time limit on your rights to notify them or return a faulty product.

• You will need to contact the manufacturer to have this issue resolved.

This isn’t right. As a first step you should contact the business that sold you the product to explain the problem. The business can’t refuse to help you by telling you to contact the manufacturer.

• If you don’t buy the extended warranty, you’ll have no protection once the 12-month warranty expires.

This isn’t right. Consumer guarantees are separate from any warranties, and they may still apply after a warranty has expired.

• We understand your concern that if you were made aware about this fault beforehand, you would not have purchased the product. We can offer you 50 per cent of the original purchase price as a goodwill gesture.

This isn’t right. If your product has a major problem, a refund should be the full amount you paid.

• The damaged item must be returned in its original packaging to receive a refund.

This isn’t right. If your product is faulty, you don’t have to return the product in its original packaging to seek a refund.

• We identified the screen is cracked on your product. The warranty doesn’t cover damaged screens, so we can’t help you today.

This isn’t right. Even if your voluntary warranty, manufacturer’s warranty, or extended warranty doesn’t cover the specific problem, it may still be covered under the consumer guarantees.

Sweden seizes cargo ship after another undersea cable hit in suspected sabotage

Re: You know, bad weather can sink bad ships

> but a small shaped explosive charge on the hull, that is made to look like an internal bang is easy to do for some nations and fixes a lot of problems

I don't know what sort of magic shape-charged you are using to make the buckling of the hull due to the explosion occur in the opposite direction to the direction of blast, but I'd like some (i.e. making a blast on the outside if a hull buckle/bend the hull in an outward direction as if the explosion came from inside the hull).

OpenZFS 2.3 is here, with RAID expansion and faster dedup

Re: Give ZFS another try

> My original question was whether I could keep the mountpoint online and data in-use throughout,

Your original post included other statements besides the specific question you asked, which seems to imply doing additional things that may be unnecessary:

"Every process of migration seems to need a manual copy of data (or snapshot) and a pool destroy/re-create,"

So I tried to be helpful to point out that some of those steps you listed as doing may not be necessary.

You can also rename a pool too if you want. if you've created a new pool and still want to just use the default mount points for consistency with the pool/dataset name, you can rename the pool once you've exported (or destroyed) the old one to the same name as the old one had.

But with respect to doing the whole thing live without even a minor hiccup in re-mounting, I do not know, but am not aware of being able to do so, however I am far from an expert in ZFS.

A better place to ask such questions would be on something like the level1tech forums where many 'enterprisey'-type people (e.g. Wendel from Leve1tech's) contribute,

Re: Give ZFS another try

> and a pool destroy/re-create, which necessitates a short downtime to flip the replacement dataset to the desired mountpoint.

why do you need to do a destroy/re-create?

By default the mountpoint for a filesystem is inherited from the parent pool/filesystem (e.g. poolname tank, filesystems will by default inherit that and be mounted at /tank/<filesystem>/ ...), but you can always manually set (and change) a mountpoint for a filesystem.

So if you send from tank/mydata mounted at default /tank/mydata to new_tank (so be default mounted at /new_tank/mydata), you can change the mountpoinf of /new_tank/mydata to /tank/mydata:

zfs set mountpoint=/tank/mydata new_tank/mydata

The mountpoint doesn't need to be the same as the pool or filesystem name:

zfs set mountpoint=/data/fred/bob new_tank/mydata

Of course, you'll need to either take the old filesystem ofline first,

zfs unmount tank/data

Or unmount the new filesystem, specify the new mountpoint, then unmount the old and mount the new:

zfs unmount new_tank/mydata

zfs set mountpoint=/tank/mydata new_tank/mydata

zfs unmount tank/mydata

zfs mount new_tank/mydata #which will now be mounted at /tank/mydata

Note however, if you already have manually set the mountpoint on a filesystem, doing a zfs send/receive of all properties will also apply that mountpoint name to the new copy (the target of the receive), but in that case if it's on the same host you probably weant to use a 'zfs receive -u' to prevent the destination filesystem from being mounted pre-maturely if the source filesystem is still mounted.

How to leave the submarine cable cutters all at sea – go Swedish

Re: Practice what you preach?

> There isn't really any need for clarity. It has long been the case that vessels damaging cables or pipelines are responsible for the damage.

There is.

It doesn't matter whether something is against the law or the law assigns responsibility if there are no consequences or the law isn't enforced. Which is what's been happening in the Batlic - lack of enforcement and thus lack of consequences.

The current activities of the various navies in the Baltic is telegraphing - i.e. clarifying - that (maybe) they are starting to take it seriously and may begin enforcing the laws and meteing out the consequences of breaking the laws.

The first step in doing that is to make sure there is sufficient monitoring being undertaken to accurately determine who is breaking the law. With lax monitoring it is easy to get away with breaking the law since it can't be pinned on the perpertrator. So first step is to up the game in the monitoring and detection of the crime and the perpertrators of the crime.

Second step is having the ability to detain the alleged perpetrators by having the necessary assets to enforce a detainment in a legal fashion, i.e. while they are still in your territorial waters and prevent them from fleeing into international waters before they can be deatined. If you have no or few assests available to intercept the alleged perpetrators, then again, that's lax enforcement and thus consequence-free sabotage.

The first two steps are what's going on with these naval asset positionings.

The final step would be to prosecute and punish the perpetrators, which it seems that Finland is taking seriously at the moment.

Therefore the current activities are 'clarifying' the stance of the NATO partners to the Russians and anyone else that wants to sabotage the undersea infrastructure that they do now take such sabotage seriously and are intent on enforcing the laws and punishments around such activities in the Baltic.

SpaceX will try satellite deployment on next Starship test

Re: Important

It's also much closer to Earth in terms of flight-time (as opposed to delta-v, I believe the delta-v for Mars isn't a lot larger than for the moon). Therefore it'd be easier to set up research bases on the moon (in the vein of Antartic research stations) with personnel rotations to build up experience with operating for extended periods on foreign bodies. If there are problems, help is only a few days flight-time away (plus whatever the launch-prep time is) rather than the 9+ months away it'd be on Mars.

So I do think the moon is a reasonable goal from a 'training grounds' perspective.

How the OS/2 flop went on to shape modern software

Re: Developers! Developers! Developers!

I disagree.

People said the same about WINE 25 years ago. If Linux could run Windows apps there'd be no market for native ones.

Well, it's done all right, and now Microsoft offers Linux apps.

I think there's a significant difference here. O/S2 was a commercial app that the developers had to be able to justify to accounting to get funding for development. If the O/S or app didn't have the revenue to satisfy the bean-counters, things stagnated or were just dropped entirely.

WINE and Linux didn't have this problem. It could weather the lack of use/revenue/bugs/drawn-out dev time for decades until it was actually useable/mainstream since there was no revenue/profit driver.

Will passkeys ever replace passwords? Can they?

Re: Lose your device, lose your access

> one reason to have a personal domain

I've thought of doing this multiple times over the years. But I can't get past the fact that it's not 'your' domain. It's a rental. And you can lose access to it in multiple ways, forget to re-register, someone hacks your account at the domain registrar, an unscrupulous registrar just takes the domain and gives it to someone who bid more for it, the registrar jacks up renewals by 1000% to a price you can't (or won't) match, etc.

I really think you should be able to 'buy' a domain, and the only renewal fees are hosting fees if you don't have your own DNS servers.

We told Post Office about system problems at the highest level, Fujitsu tells Horizon Inquiry

Re: In defense of Gareth

> Gareth's evidence related to the specific scenarios mentioned in defense, he was not cross examined or asked about other defects : The UK courts rely on the adversarial principle if you don't cross examine, doubt is not considered. The judge could have asked questions, but it is likely they were peeved by the professional discourtesy of not engaging a barrister.

That only applies to a 'fact' witness, not an expert witness.

An expert witness - which is what Gareth Jenkins was presented as - produces a report and submits that report as part of their witness statement.

That report produced by an expert is required to be made on the basis of assisting the court, which means it is supposed to cover things like known issues, caveats, etc. It should have a discussoin about known issues and why they do or do not apply in this instance and so on. An expert witness is required to go far beyond just answering 'the question' like a fact witness would.

And that's the point with respect to Mr. Jenkins, that he was never properly advised of this 'extra' requirements an expert witness needs to perform.

Expert Evidence - The Crown Prosecution Service:

The Duty of an Expert Witness

The duty of an expert witness is to help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. This is a duty that is owed to the court and overrides any obligation to the party from whom the expert is receiving instructions - see Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 Part 19. (CrimPR 19.

CrimPR 19.2(3)(d) also obliges all experts to disclose to the party instructing them anything (of which the expert is aware) that might reasonably be thought capable of undermining the expert’s opinion or detracting from their credibility or impartiality.

...

3. The expert is impartial

The expert must be able to provide impartial, unbiased, objective evidence on the matters within their field of expertise. This is reinforced by Rule 19.2 of the Criminal Procedure Rules which provides that an expert has an overriding duty to give opinion evidence which is objective and unbiased.

...

4. The expert's evidence is reliable

There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence, or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.

The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.

In satisfying itself that there is a sufficiently reliable basis for expert evidence to be admitted, the court will be expected to have regard to Criminal Practice Directions 2023 at 7.1.2which states:

"7.1.2Factors which the court may take into account in determining the reliability of expert opinion, and especially of expert scientific opinion, include:

the extent and quality of the data on which the expert’s opinion is based, and the validity of the methods by which they were obtained;

the validity of the methodology employed by the expert;

if the expert’s opinion relies on an inference from any findings, whether the opinion properly explains how safe or unsafe the inference is (whether by reference to statistical significance or in other appropriate terms);

if the expert’s opinion relies on the results of the use of any method (for instance, a test, measurement or survey), whether the opinion takes proper account of matters, such as the degree of precision or margin of uncertainty, affecting the accuracy or reliability of those results;

the extent to which any material upon which the expert's opinion is based has been reviewed by others with relevant expertise (for instance, in peer- reviewed publications), and the views of those others on that material;

the extent to which the expert's opinion is based on material falling outside the expert's own field of expertise;

the completeness of the information which was available to the expert, and whether the expert took account of all relevant information in arriving at the opinion (including information as to the context of any facts to which the opinion relates);

if there is a range of expert opinion on the matter in question, where in the range the expert's own opinion lies and whether the expert's preference has been properly explained; and

whether the expert's methods followed established practice in the field and, if they did not, whether the reason for the divergence has been properly explained.

"7.1.3: In addition, in considering reliability, and especially the reliability of expert scientific opinion, the court must be astute to identify potential flaws in such opinion which detract from its reliability, such as:

being based on a hypothesis which has not been subjected to sufficient scrutiny (including, where appropriate, experimental or other testing), or which has failed to stand up to scrutiny;

being based on an unjustifiable assumption;

being based on flawed data;

relying on an examination, technique, method or process which was not properly carried out or applied, or was not appropriate for use in the particular case; or

relying on an inference or conclusion which has not been properly reached."

Re: Time to produce the audit trail

> The legal status is that it is a Public Enquiry, not a Court of Law so no, it wouldn't be perjury.

It is a statutory enquiry that has the power to compel (summons) witnesses to give evidence under oath and if they refuse the summons they can be arrested (once a warrant is issued for contempt for not complying with the summons) and otherwise criminally prosecuted.

Witnesses to the enquiry take the same oath to tell the truth as witnesses in a trial do. The broadcast of the questioning includes the witness taking the oath to tell the truth, and in some cases - where the witness being called is already under suspicion of criminal activity or actively being investigated by the police (e.g. Gareth Jenkins (youtube video of his testimony) from Fujitsu is under investigation for perjury in the criminal trials that he gave evidence in) - after taking that oath the Char of the enquiry also reads the witness their rights regarding self-incrimination.

They absolutely can be prosecuted for perjury.

However, the specific statements being referred to here are closing statements by the Barristers (lawyers), who are not witnesses and thus are not under oath, as is true for legal counsel in a criminal or civil trial. This does not mean they are allowed to lie, they are under professional obligations that can result in them being dis-barred and/or otherwise sanctioned, but it is not perjury.

Microsoft won't let customers opt out of passkey push

Re: That's not a problem with passkeys

> The only exception is within a smaller security domain - like if you lose access to your university resources if they have a way you can go to a physical office and present your official ID they can get back your lost access without opening things up to remote attack.

I think that's sorta the point, they want to become that single security domain for you and tie you into their system. They want you to use their, and only their, services for that single security domain. Passkeys are an enabler of lock-in.

Mr Intel leaving Intel is not a great sign... for Intel

Re: Replicant Gelsinger

> nVidia's also in a weird personnel position in that so many of its staff were given company shares in years gone by that the place is full of millionaires now.

It might be 'weird', but it's not unique.

Several 70's/80's startups that made it big have been through the same thing. Microsoft is a prime example, there was a doco in the late 90's I think it was, and there was a woman in her 50's that was just boxing up Windows CDs/manuals in a production line who was a multi-millionaire because she'd been with Microsoft for nearly 20 years and her share options were worth millions, and this is a fairly menial job to have gained so many share options, imagine what high-level staff would have.

These are the 'exception' stories that make people work for fuck-all at startups hoping their startup is going to be one of these exceptions. Like where people say "Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college and became a billionaire, so I'm going to dropout too". Sure, but the Zuckerbergs are a 1 in 10million dropouts, most of the rest are still waiting tables (obviously of course some did well if not quite hugely rich, but again the ones who did really well are the 1 in 100k dropouts).