Personally the question is if they are "saving" other projects or news so they can be released in case a competitor makes a move? Who knows if this was ready days or weeks ago and were waiting on someone to drop some news, so they can shadow those news.

It seems that the usage of SHA-1 is interpreted as a security mechanism while Linus used it mainly for other reasons, such as look up speed and deduplication of objects.

You can read the original README file when Linus created git[1]:

>+TRUST: The notion of "trust" is really outside the scope of "git", but

>+it's worth noting a few things. First off, since everything is hashed

>+with SHA1, you _can_ trust that an object is intact and has not been

>+messed with by external sources. So the name of an object uniquely

>+identifies a known state - just not a state that you may want to trust.

> ...

> +Another way of saying the same thing: "git" itself only handles content

> +integrity, the trust has to come from outside.

Yes if SHA-1 is broken, then content integrity can be broken but to me it looks like Linus at the time looked it from the point of view of corruption of files instead of "malicious" files.

[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/diff/README?id=e8...

This is what I saw in one of the mails. > > There are organizations where SHA-1 is blanket banned across the board - regardless of its use

And also on git 3.0 breaking changes. > > SHA-1 ... recommended against in FIPS 140-2 and similar certifications

Since SHA-1 isn't used for security in git, they should've instead moved to a non-cryptographic hash function such as MurmurHash3 and avoid all these problems, instead of moving to SHA-256 until SHA-256 is broken and need to move to the next cryptographic hash that is now incompatible with previous versions of git repositories.

For example, any red-hat based linux distro comes with Firewalld, you could set rules that by default will block all external connections and only allow your kids and their friends IP addresses to connect to your server (and only specifically on port 53). So your DNS server will only receive connections from the whitelisted IPs. Of course the only downside is that if their IP changes, you'll have to troubleshoot and whitelist the new IP, and there is the tiny possibility that they might be behind CGNAT where their IPv4 is shared with another random person, who is looking to exploit DNS servers.

But I'd say that is a pretty good solution, no one will know you are even running a DNS service except for the whitelisted IPs.

The study you linked doesn't show that people are becoming dumber because of LLMs, its just showing that when you offload tasks to these tools your brain engages less in that specific task, just like you'd do with a calculator, instead of doing complex calculations on paper, the calculator will do them for you, or when writing and using a spell-checker or using a search engine, instead of opening a book and searching. The question is whether in the long-term cognitive capacity is reduced, and like I said before this argument predates LLMs (All the way back to Socrates)

Also, take the study with a grain of salt as this is a small sample with only 54 participants for a single task on a short term study.

Personally, I believe LLMs just allows us to have a higher level of abstraction.

This is just the same concern whenever a new technology appears.

* Socrates argued that writing would weaken memory, that it would create only superficially knowledge but incapable of really understanding. But it didn't destroy it. It allowed to store information and share it with many others far away.

* The internet and web indexers made information instantly accessible, allowing you to search for the information you just need, the fear is that people would just copy from the internet, yet researching information became way faster, any one with Internet access could access this information and learn themselves, just look at the amount of educational websites with courses to learn.

Each time a new technology came and people feared that it could degrade knowledge, the tools only helped us to increase our knowledge.

Just like with books and the internet, people could simply copy and not learn anything, its not exclusive to LLMs. The issue isn't in the tool itself, but how we use it. The new generation will probably instead of learning how to search, they will need to learn how to prompt, ask and evaluate whether the LLM isn't hallucinating or not.

Though you can browse and download the latest version 3.0A (1996), there is a directory where they have older versions, but its a bunch of files mixed up with different versions. https://www.w3.org/Daemon/old/

To say they don't owe you nothing seems like a betrayal on the promise that Android was an open platform (and open source).

> You are free to not use their products or start a company to compete

That's not an option as you are making it out to be. For a user switching means buying a new phone, repurchasing apps (if you bought) and maybe apps won't be even available to the new system, for developers that means all their knowledge about the system gone. Building a mobile operating system requires millions if not billions of dollars, years of work and convincing developers and businesses (hardware makers) to use your operating system. The barrier to enter is so high that telling people to just compete with Google is not a realistic solution.

[1] https://blog.google/company-news/inside-google/around-the-gl...

> 1. Existing guidelines already handle low-value content. If an AI reply is shallow or off-topic, it gets downvoted or flagged. > > 2. Transparency is good. Explicitly citing an AI is better than users passing off its output as their own, which a ban might encourage. > > 3. The community can self-regulate. We don't need a new rule for every type of low-effort content. > > The issue is low effort, not the tool used. Let downvotes handle it.

For example a while back vscode-pets[1] plugin became popular and tried it and noticed that the pet can only live within a window, whether its the explorer section or in its own panel, I thought it'd be more of a desktop pet that could be anywhere within VSCode but apparently there are limitations (https://github.com/tonybaloney/vscode-pets/issues/4).

So my guess is that forking VSCode and customizing it that way is much easier to do things that you can't with a plugin while also not having to maintain an IDE/Text editor.

[1] https://github.com/tonybaloney/vscode-pets

From my understanding this is the "bottleneck" in quality for older systems (at least in gaming consoles), converting Analogue to Digital. Which is why "RetroTink" sells different converters from ~$100 up to $750 (RetroTINK-4K Pro). I've seen a few videos comparing cheap generic USB converters with more expensive upscalers and there is a noticeable difference in image quality

At first I wasn't sure what I had to do, it simply throws you into the game, and it's easy to get confused with the numbers around it, because usually if there are numbers, there is going to be somewhere (usually at the bottom) the numbers and the clue for each of them.

It took me a bit to find how to get the clues from the vertical words (double tapping).

The onscreen keyboard isn't very responsive in the sense that I had to tap several times the backspace to delete a letter.

It doesn't allow to play again :(

I gave it a try and look for the locations, specially the 3rd one that does indeed look like it could be in Chile.

For the 2nd picture I found an island in the French Polynesia that has very similar colors and characteristics, might be its around that area, 8°56'10.8"S 139°34'41.2"W (-8.936304553977038, -139.57811272908305)

For the 3rd picture I found many locations that look like your picture but really couldn't find one. The first one is around Mexico, though it probably isn't 27°32'39.0"N 114°45'00.5"W (27.544166, -114.750130). And the second one are islands close to Morocco 28°01'54.4"N 17°16'22.9"W (28.03198233652239, -17.27306308433365) though the angle is not the same... As a bonus for the 3rd picture, I did find in the Andes mountain something that looks like your picture: 33°38'11.7"S 70°07'01.4"W (-33.636446, -70.116968). So maybe you should also look around mountains.

At least from what I've seen in Chile the coast is usually very rocky and the water is usually lot of waves, and in the picture it looks really smooth. (Though I don't know how zoomed out the picture is)