Demand was on a constant down trends. From PCs, servers over light bulbs to electric based heating (heat pumps and IR heat lamps instead of "direct" electric heating + better insulation) everything has got _way_ more efficient. But also a lot of high energy need industry has moved of from the UK (or most 1st world countries) for decades by now.

A short (not proper) lookup show that even if you where to replace _all_ cars in the UK with electric cars the total need for that would be 30TWh/y while the UK produces ~322TWh/y so less then a 10% increase (in relation to production, not consumption).

The only thing which has caused a mayor hickup more or less all countries long term plan for electricity production is AI.

But not because GPGPU compute is that inefficient, it has gotten way more efficient. But instead because of how insanely much compute AI needs.

withholding security updates seems to avoid a law which requires rolling out security updates seems very much like something which needs to be fixed one way or another

either way if that is true it looks like a very intentional abuse/misinterpretation of existing regulations

true, but what if you just don't

use skills & multipasses to keep code clean and compact (which does work if you do it right, but drives up the cost)

use a different AI to review the first AI

give it a short not in depth human review, _except_ for anything security critical

rely on lintable language specific limitations (e.g. rust no unsafe, typing, white/banned lists of imports, no eval, language sandbox etc.) to reduce what can go wrong outside of the small part of properly reviewed code (and yes, this makes languages like C & C++ close to a no-go as many of the previous points are just too brittle)

I can not say I like this idea, I really really don't.

But I have seen a small startup having rather large success with it (at least during initial bootstrap time, rest will have to be seen), so as much as this idea repels me I fear this will become somewhat of an standard. But as mentioned they also did a _lot_ more then "just dropping in" AI. (Also maybe worth a shoot out is them doing decent requirements engineering, sure using AI, but I have seen way to many places skipping it fully at a hidden but extremely high long term cost)

I also have seen the opposites, large blobs of not well written AI generated code which produces a slew of subtle easy to overlook bugs & inconsistencies (partially due to giving the AI wrong requirements due to not having done requirements enginering) which passes tests but will come back to bite you later. This did drain teams hard. Not only did it eat a lot of time for reviewing, but also those kind of "not how humans would have messed it up" bugs drained even more time. Maybe worst all the new time drains where not the kind of work devs like to do, so that drained motivation to a point where it can affect productivity.

Redhead limits third party distribution

Google _sells_ third party distribution but forbids the third party to also provide products of a 4th party.

Both can be legally and ethically be discussed.

But one is open source being less open then it should be.

But the other "(effectively) forbids selling of a product of another vendor in context of duopoly".

That the product is based on a open source from the 1st party is overall irrelevant here.

I.e. this isn't really about open source, this is about _very_ fundamental rules of (proper working) capitalism being breached in ways which iff widely tolerated are very likely to lead to economical & innovation decline and long term collapse sooner or later.

but a break up is also kinda the most extreme case

more common is specific requirements being enforced onto the company and fining them severely if they continue to refuse to comply (while also still doing business in given country)

how is that legal??

that sounds like a very clean cut case of thinks companies aren't allowed to do under fair market lawes

In the end "help with migration to" isn't the same supporting the existing product.

And if you advertised a product with 10 year support that _is_ legally binding (in the EU) and a clear cut case of you losing around 10-20% of the advertised value.

Given that legal costs might be to some degree covered by legal insurance and it being a clean cut case this is likely worth the money. But also a case where google can "just settle and not care" as in many cases schools did more things like forcing parents to buy chrome books then buying them themself, so it's unlikely to amass any relevant damage amount for Google.

More funny would be if the judge rules "10 years promised? You are cable of delivering 10 years?! You have to deliver it! And for all chrome books bought [8;10[ years before the deadline not just the suing party".

> Your files and your account [..]

> Ports and windows on the host

it is quite likely that you can break out even with no linux containers related CVEs. --isolate does seem to fix that somehow but is explicit opt. in and "more painful to use" ... (which creates a UX challenge unlikely to end well from a security POV).

And what prevented adopting/supporting existing projects, instead of further tool ecosystem fragmentation? (kinda the same question, just differently phrased)

even more so it is reasonable to assume their (executive) statement was a simplification ignoring small for the overall statement irrelevant exceptions

like ignoring there being a factory build which is small and only meant for older nodes producing embedded chips and is for the car industry only

because honestly while the factory does matter for Bosh, it doesn't really make much difference for the larger picture of chip production in the EU

simplified you can think of a statement outside of a transaction as starting an implicit transaction just for itself

and (normal) locks are in general hold until the end of the transaction (while also allowing re-entrance from subsequent queries on the same transaction)

practically

- there are edge cases (e.g. Advisory Locks, but in general you don't want to use them)

- you normally(^1) would want to run your pg migration as a single transaction (but there are edge cases). And in turn the OPs idea of pre-acquiring locks would be for the whole transaction anyway. Plus it was just a general idea, so the end result could be more like an "expect lock" statement maybe with some scan ahead ability then an "acquire lock".

(^1): Exceptions include certain operations which need to be in different transactions, and some painful situations where too much data is touched/changed/computed and you need a lot of very careful handling you common small-ish PG DB use-case isn't exposed to (and in turn a lot of "naive but often good enough" migration setups can't handle either...)

I think to remember that the most absurd thing was that if you tell Teams "this is chrome" (even when it's FF) it did work just fine.

there are some (decent & serious) Efforts to make Linux apps/UI tools phone format compatible

but for various reasons (mostly hardware) stuff like e.g. the Libre phone feel more like toys for enthusiast and very committed people then things a "average" person can just use.

The biggest problem in the future seems to be the regulatory capture/lobby induced "well meant but bad done" laws, wrt. to misguided device attestation laws which "happen" to in effect require you to have a Google Android or iPhone in practice even through that not actually being needed for the law to work.

>> > and have enough Linux know how to fix the occasional hick up

is for how how to have a reliable acceptable Linux experience and I have less issues with rare occasional hick ups then I had on Windows and Mac in the past. But that is long ago. Through just looking at all the AD/snooping issues, how often windows seem to have broken updates etc. this is way nicer on Linux and seem to be still not worse on Linux then Mac.

> > but it can sometimes "just work" for a long time without any issues

the example here with my gaming setup _doesn't_ require "have enough Linux know-how",

after the initial setup it so far just did works

The initial setup was just running a trivial install + ~2 simple to do and find through search, but should-be-unneeded initial tweaks (both Steam specific).

through I currently happen to only care about games both available on Steam and running on Linux without Linux specific manual setup/tweaks (like Silk Song, Nine Sols, Detroit Become Human (but all native 4k)). And it's all AMD and no "unusual" consumer hardware components.

Idk. about desktop Linux, but my phone does the (WLAN -> Mobile) switch just fine.

If it's about _not reconnecting_ (e.g. which for many apps might require some manual pause/resume of streamed data or similar), then things are more complex as you can't keep your IP, so it then depends on weather the application uses HTTP3/Quick or similar protocols in implementations which are designed to be able to freely roll over to different IP addresses.

So both yes and no :)

if you use distros which ship the latest _stable_ release of software

and have enough Linux know how to fix the occasional hick up

but it can sometimes "just work" for a long time without any issues, something I haven't exactly had with either Windows or Mac

like my current gaming setup from a year ago(roughly) was setup once, I had to fiddle some minor tweaks during setup and since then it "just works tm". No issues, not know how needed, nothing. (At least for the Games I play.) But also not Nvidea which has in recent years increasingly more QA issues across _all_ OSes and _all_ hardware including their supper expensive AI cards... But that is more a Nvidea then a Linux Problem, by now, was different in the past.

- they mainly look at the first Google result and sometimes if it looks "not convincing" the next few. Especially on a phone where the screen space will cut out most results without scrolling.

- a lot of them write (partial) questions instead of "search queries"

- the first result is an AI response which is very good at being "convincing looking" even if it's plain wrong. (And the others they might look at are nearly guaranteed bought.)

soooo

I don't think much changes for most people.

Sure Google Search AI response links some sources (but not many and it's not that rare for them to not really be sources for the _full_ answer...).

But so do (some) AI agents.

Through the naivety with which I see people trusting AI is very scary.

This makes me wonder if following statement:

> Of 139 studies on the effect of AI on critical thinking, 67 reported only positive effects of AI use.

is a side effect of the studies using sub-par methodology or if I have some observation bias.

Like the problem is many people filer trust by "who they ask", "if the question is hard", "if people might have a reason to lie". But the problem is AI works so differently that you can't trust it in _any_ question, even causal questions where (close to) no westerner(^1) would consider lying to you and everyone would either know they don't know or have the right answer...

(^1): Some cultures for "politeness" reasons value "giving a answer" over "saying I don't know", especially if the person won't see you again. That is getting much better AFIK in such cultures but can be a problem when e.g. asking for the way...