The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.

Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.

Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.

The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?

Never thinking about that this actual rude behaviour might come back at some point to yourself - and it was not a question of if but just of when.

Well, question answered.

"At the center of the proceedings is a Tagesschau report that was based on misleading assessments of the Correctiv report. It was falsely claimed that the expulsion of German citizens and the revocation of citizenship based on racist criteria had been discussed at the meeting in Potsdam. This was refuted by affidavits from the participants."

https://www.hoecker.eu/news/wer-auf-correctiv-setzt-zahlt-dr...

more details: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/daili-es-sentials/correctiv-ca...

Moreover, one of these agencies is run by a left-wing comrade who is a qualified social education worker. However, the agency should actually be headed by a lawyer, as in the Thuringian law, which was simply reinterpreted in the case of Stephan J. Kramer.

So yeah, that's an trustworthy argument.

Actually it is recursive: Why should it be forbidden to create an artificial person which impersonates the actor impersonating the role in a movie or play?

It's not about Rust or C - it's about transparency. The existing maintainers assume that it is not a priority for them whether they break something downstream or not. They therefore work in a space with interfaces that they can change as they see fit, without giving any guarantees as to their continued existence or wanting to subordinate themselves to a defined change process.

Rust is just a symptom of growing pains. Growth would be achieved if they could agree on common rules which would foster independent development linked by the interface contracts.

Instead, the issue is that established maintainers have grown fond of their zoo and are only pursuing their own priorities in a landlord-like manner. On the other hand, they see new technologies appearing and disappearing on the horizon and have consequently realized that a new technology or language cannot improve an existing system.

And yet they are classically talking past each other.

The RKI was only used to sell these orders to the public by given their ideas a scientific face.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41054396

Points: 9

# Comments: 4

If something is produced where the author is upset afterwards when this good is not used in the way he/she intended to, than it's the problem of the author in the first place to have choosen the wrong license.

Yes, of course, ChatGPT & Co. are very unlikely to take any real care about what they give their models to learn - especially with regard to copyright.

For a better perspective, I always try to transfer the behavior to the analog world. In this sense, someone who, for example, illegally obtains a book on Linux (let's say via ebook) would not be ethically in the correct position to contribute to Gentoo, because the knowledge on which their contribution is based would be stolen intellectual property.

I can't imagine that there are any people in this world whose knowledge was obtained exclusively through copyright legal means. We are all in a gray area - one possibly more than the other.

In my view, it is typical of engineers to simply transfer philosophically complicated moral issues to technologies. But this method will never come close to solving anything, because the very complicated analog moral world cannot simply be mapped to 0 or 1.

Anybody remembers DataTables https://datatables.net or X-editable https://vitalets.github.io/x-editable/ ?

Although the article cannot substantiate its claims in any way (e.g. the alleged "secret plan" has been available to everyone in book form for months), the public service media adopt every assertion without distance and make completely unsavory comparisons with the Third Reich.

The government has thus successfully suppressed the perception of protests by farmers and the middle classes. Propaganda in its purest form.

A long text that covers the current situation well: https://www.tichyseinblick.de/meinungen/correctiv-wannsee-un...

A proper branching strategy is not a technical solution but a social alignment of people contributing to common product. And it doesn't matter if they are contributing on different repositories or on the different branches. The technical complexity of aligning interfaces is the same in both cases.

"It's often not as easy as you make it sound."

No, it's of course not easy. But the costs in splitting teams up into different repositories and aligning their interfaces is not easy either. My point is they are both the same - just expressed differently.

Of course this is the bottom line. But everything you define in the sentence can be achieved with a proper pipeline and repository architecture based on a monolith as well. For example teams could use a branch setup where they own their own team branches capable of merging to master and deploying. Each team could then define their own testing strategy and Definition of Done on their "team master".

Having the ability to release independently is actually a social problem, not a technical one. But the symptom of that social misalignment often shows up as a technical problem (dropping release KPIs, etc.)

So changing from a monolith to microservice will most likely only fight the symptom, not the root cause.