The only problem with DNSSEC here is that it's complex.

Think about some random person born in the 1950s. It will be impossible for you to directly prove that that person has two parents, but with all your knowledge about biology, and your knowledge that humans could not be cloned in the 1950s, it's not a head scratcher, unless our understanding of biology is completely off, it's not just speculation there were two parents. That's the comparable situation with dark matter. It's not a head scratcher. Every indication shows there is a lot of mass around that doesn't interact with light.

I don't know if they were the first git forge, but they were certainly among the first.

He had some strong opinions around interpretations of quantum physics, but that isn't even a question of science, it's a metaphysical discussion.

While we're at it, Einstein also wasn't a bad student, and he didn't hate mathematics.

Considering the goal is to identify people, this is undeniably PII. As the article demonstrates, it also pertains sensitive information.

Even if we built a rocket just designed to get stuff as far away as quickly away as possible, it would take decades to catch up to where they are now.

Microsoft does have a figurative trademark for "Office" with the rectangular icon: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/01141355... - office.eu's logo does not bear any resemblance.

The only way this would be infringing is if office.eu usage could be confused with Microsoft other's trademarks - like Microsoft Office - but I don't see that.

So no, office.eu will have a calm Monday on that front, just like hundreds of other companies offering products with "Office" in their name.

(I'm not a lawyer. Talk to a lawyer before deciding to take on a trillion dollar company).

What LLM do is even farther away from what neural nets do, and even there - artificial neurons are inspired by but not reimplementing biological neurons.

You can understand human thought in terms of LLMs, but that is just a simile, like understanding physical reality in terms of computers or clockworks.

And that's in the US, other countries have similar exceptions but they are also usually quite limited.

This didn't used to be the case, so I assume that it must be intentional.

Also, three decades is going a bit too far back, I think. In the mid nineties, C was still king, with assembly still hanging on. C++ was just one of several promising candidates, with some brave souls even trying Java.

There was always a confusion about whether a kilobyte was 1000 or 1024 bytes. Early diskettes always used 1000, only when the 8 bit home computer era started was the 1024 convention firmly established.

Before that it made no sense to talk about kilo as 1024. Earlier computers measured space in records and words, and I guess you can see how in 1960, no one would use kilo to mean 1024 for a 13 bit computer with 40 byte records. A kiloword was, naturally, 1000 words, so why would a kilobyte be 1024?

1024 bearing near ubiquitous was only the case in the 90s or so - except for drive manufacturing and signal processing. Binary prefixes didn't invent the confusion, they were a partial solution. As you point out, while it's possible to clearly indicate binary prefixes, we have no unambiguous notation for decimal bytes.