![](https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/d451c051-3cc2-4b9b-ae35-5417d1aceb17.jpeg)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
I think it was a general “when you leave Canada” policy.
I think it was a general “when you leave Canada” policy.
Sucks because you know they don’t cost nearly that much to make but it is what it is. 😅
I guess Chromium isn’t fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I’d think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.
Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don’t like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.
Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I’m looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.
Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.
Any intuition on why we’d expect opening the same page on a newly implemented browser engine that implements all equivalent standards and functions will consume less resources?
In fiat economies financial capital isn’t a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens’ money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn’t hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don’t need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There’s no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government’s “printing press.”
Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they’re not as easily replaceable. That’s why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they’re knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they’re people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn’t ideal. If we assume the latter, then it’s a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they’re not essential for economic growth.
Even if they exfiltrate the money, China as every other fiat economy can replace it using a keyboard.
If these folks are indeed knowledgeable and experienced workers, then having them leave isn’t ideal. But whether they’re such people or not is an open question. They might also be people who are good at exploiting others’ labor for profit, just like their western many-multi-mil counterparts.
I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren’t rookie so there’s perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.
China saw the world’s biggest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record exodus of 15,200 in 2024, dealing a further blow to its economy, a new report says.
It’s interesting how through the neoliberal lens this looks like “a blow” to their economy. But from a Keynesian or MMT lens, China doesn’t need high net worth individuals to drive the economy. Public investment can and has done this in China as well as many other parts of the world.
From another angle, letting high net worth individuals flee, could reduce apparent wealth inequality in China.
You can get the binary from the project’s website. Still not suggesting to f around with it.
If you have root you could theoretically add Memtest86+ to the boot order. There’s tools that allow adding boot entries in EFI. You could probably place a Memtest86+ binary in your EFI partition and register it with the EFI firmware. But I’m not suggesting to do it since you could make the machine unbootable and the problem might be on the storage path. I’m just thinking of should be possible.
Most machines I owned that had kernel panics had either an NVIDIA or an AMD GPU graphics adapter, along with bad memory.
FTFY
Even as far back as 2010 the corpo I worked for had an official travel protocol that dictated backing up Blackberries, factory resetting them, crossing the border, then restoring them from the cloud. That was for crossing any border.
Title says growth, article paragraph says contraction. Yeah technically contraction is negative growth. Still misleading.
As many have pointed out, price wise it’s not competitive. But more than that, the main feature of the Pi is its software support. I buy a Pi not because it’s got the top specs but because I know I can load a rock solid OS with security support and I won’t have to think about it. This is a problem for every Pi competitor.
They’ll do an unprofitable thing? X
Perhaps to people who are used to watching ad infested cable and don’t pay for ad-free streaming. So it’s not that ads aren’t detracting from the experience but that some folks are used to it. Getting those folks is growth. Number go up.
It isn’t? You might be looking at a different market.
If you were actually able to set it up via ssh,
I never said that.
I’m on Ubiquity’s payroll, definitely. I’m expecting a check in the mail any day now.
And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn’t exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn’t without inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc)