But there are other options.

It’s a blog post. If it was, say, a peer reviewed paper by Hinton or LeCunn that fails to cite Schmidhuber, that would be reasonable criticism in my opinion. (Spoiler: they fail to cite him)

One positive, in the eyes of many people, does not absolve for a large body of evil. For many it doesn’t even absolve a small body of evil deeds. (Zuck/Meta’s evil deeds are numerous and enormous)

It wasn’t from Apple, but it’s basically a plastic shape and 2 or 3 (depending on end) metal parts - it’s hard to get wrong, and easy to test before use.

But what is that command? And how do you know which disk has gone bad?

I am sure I can get an answer from Google / Claude / ChatGPT, but a guide is incomplete without it - and the failure report should be active like a beep or flashing hardware light - I typically log into my NAS only a few times a year. A motd or other banner isn’t sufficient.

(And I know I have to do that, because when the disk fails it beeps and lights a led near the bad disk)

It’s easy to build a NAS such as the one described in this article, but in the long run, data loss is significantly more likely.

Also, any guide like this that doesn’t guide you through “disk 3 failed, this is how you safely replace it” is imho incomplete, even if it doesn’t go through telling you how you know a disk has failed.

The reason APL made that choice (and its descendants followed) is that it had many tens of operators. There’s no intuitive or otherwise accepted order among them. Which means it’s either all parentheses (like you seem to prefer) or a simple rule (left-of-right). There’s basically no other solution.

Forth and Lisp also dropped precedence and associativity rules, each in their own way.

The cost to Microsoft is essentially zero if they ate already committed to these security updates (and they are, at least for the LTSC branch and some government contracts)

The law was hastily passed to discourage copycats while working on the exit tax law without haste.

Just means an attacker also needs to mitm DNS if you MITM the host. Not trivial, but depending on setup might not be harder.

This is not really different than C vs Rust, or even Perl regular expressions (unbounded execution time) vs real regular expression. With great powers comes great abilities to shoot yourself in the foot.

The power/guarantee balance is delicate, and you can’t hold the stick at both ends. People will always complain.

Real regexes (actually regular…) are infinitely better than Python code matching the same string (if they are sufficient) - you can compute their intersection, union, complement; check if they can match anything at all (and generate an example automaticallly).

For software builds, Bazel and others use Starlark, which is a restricted Python subset, so builds can be guaranteed finite and can be reasoned about.

Ansible may or may not offer any benefits in return for the limits (I am not an ansible guru), but in general, most tasks do not need a Turing complete configuration/specification language - and it is then better to NOT have Turing completeness.