I mean even perennially contentious topics will get this behavior.... some thing about emacs makes the front page, within a day or two there will be a vim post up there. Same with Rust is (good|bad), or if systemd creates an even more awesome tool, the haters will come along and recycle stories about bugs from over a decade ago.

There's a lot of people here. Not all of them read it every hour, and discussions like this among large groups often take a very long time with lots of repetition. Human group dynamics (aka politics) is slow.

> So tired of this discourse and this site.

You're welcome to leave if you don't like it. The site was like this long before you joined, and will like it long after you leave I'm sure.

It's also worth noting, that an awful lot of math discoveries are perfectly in line with dumb next token generators - they are finding a way to formally construct an argument and being surprised when it doesn't work, or surprised at the outcome of the grind. Not all of them are made by brilliant leaps of intuition.

Most data-center networks are involve aggregation/spine/core switches at higher speed than TOR/leaf switches - so the packet has to be buffered.

Most every workload is going to involve port collisions (2 packets at the same time needing the same output port) - again a full buffering required (or drops and throughput reduction).

Bigger networks start using vlans, mpls, ip routing at switches, and vxlan - requiring more lookups per-packet, larger "minimum chunks of packet seen before port is determined" sizes, etc reducing the value of cut-through.

And so on.

But i also struggle to find a scenario where a principle engineer at google is refusing to accept that cut-through switches exist, but rather, was refusing to accept that the scenario they're talking through with you would ever involve an effectively deployed cut-through switch (since that's basically never).

Why would people pay so much for the $brand_name.com, etc if there wasn't a marketing component to it?

Your complaint is like complaining that a CS paper doesn't even mention that P = NP is still unknown, and that it just assumes that the best sorting methods are O(n log n). Some things are considered general knowledge in a field, and in archaeology one of those things is: all of this is a best guess given current evidence and methods.

The whole paper is full of citations to other work, which is full of citations to other work - all this work linked includes detailed reports of what was found where and what-else was there, people who do statistical analyisis of similar findings, people who ask questions like "what explanations can there be for it?", more importantly "what else would we find if X was true, if Y was true?". When new evidence arrives, people can and do go back and re-examine these things. Your random skepticism and all the questions you may ask have already been asked and addressed, and frankly: these archaeologist's conclusions carry far far far more believable weight than your half-assed skepticism.

Not to mention that a huge percentage of the fiber laid in the 90s was never used. It was put in the wrong place or turned out to be the wrong type or was just lost when the "the internet is the future and will change everything. it runs over fiber and we'll need so much more than we could ever lay" companies went bust.

Any safety measure that requires the humans to do the right procedures the right way for 10^5 years is not safety.

I'll bet anything you'd be the guy that won't drink a glass of the "perfectly safe, completely unaffected" water while making such utterly absurd claims.

This is also a great argument for licensing - proving that you know how to properly work and use a gun seems like perfect militia regulation (in the proper functioning sense).

I actually like this ruling. I just think the absurd level of zealotry and bad/stupid/illogical reasoning that comes from the ignorance worshiping 2A crowd is fucking embarrassing as a human.

Besides the freedom of the State means that its not subordinate to another State. Not that random people get to shoot at the duly elected State government.

The right to bear arms is the subordinate clause to the purpose of a well regulated militia.

Since the purpose of that militia is clearly defined as "being necessary for the security of the State", it seems to me that the regulating body is the State.

Seems to me that the right to bear arms is limited to circumstances when the State itself is under threat. It seems to me that anyone having a gun in their home when the state is not under attack is an open question not covered directly by "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

But that's because I'm looking at all the words of the actual amendment. I guess your position is that "only randomly selected phrases from the constitution matter if they help me get what I want, whole sentences and the whole document don't actually matter".

Further, can anything be "100% human writt even if it uses pen and paper? No of course not! Unless it is created by pricking a finger and put on human vellum, it's only partially human written.

Seriously though - if you want to do stupid purity test games, at least be properly pure about it. This half-assed nonsense is just trite.