Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)
Pointing to the inaction of other countries as an excuse for one's own inaction is a weak argument. Good luck suing Russia. (They were actually a member of the Council of Europe until 2022, so this decision would have applied to them...)
There is an international court of human rights. How often was India found guilty there?
>Either you're arguing in bad faith, or you don't understand that this might help pushing governments to take stricter measures.
I am 100% convinced that there is nothing which makes you object more to climate protection than a foreign entity trying to compel the government you control to "do more".
And even if. When will India/China act? How many International court of human rights ruling will that take?
There isn't. There is the ICJ, which handles disputes between states, and the ICC, which handles war crimes etc. and definitely isn't going to judge climate legislation.
This is an outcome of the WGA strike negotiations. Now writers (and actors, and anyone else) can use this information to better negotiate their worth with studios, rather than it being 1-sided. All other streaming services should be following suit soon.
https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/what-we-won
> Streaming data transparency: Companies agree to provide the Guild the total number of hours streamed, both domestically and internationally, of self-produced high budget streaming programs (e.g., a Netflix original series). Aggregated information can be shared.
When you say that an hour has elapsed, it simply means the earth has rotated 15°. When you go 60 mph, you have moved 60 miles while the earth has rotated 15°.
The past is the way things were before they moved. Our memory is an image of the way things were arranged before. Time is a creation of the mind.
If there were no matter, there would be no time.
The article you're responding to is a dramatic demonstration that it has happened: Amazon's IPs would not be worth $4.5B if we hadn't run out. It requires us all to ration a resource (namely numbers) that should be near-infinite and essentially free.
It's the only systems level language with a formally verified compiler afaik.
rust is a no go because you can't trust the compiler's output (remember, we can't trust people to write correct code, so we obviously can't trust the compiler writers either).
From a security perspective, demanding a formally verified C compiler is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Switching to a safer language like Rust will do much more to improve security, even if the compiler is not verified.
This is the kind of absurd, foundation-shaking statement that, as someone who's been coding since I was 7 (in 1987..) feels purely nauseating. Although I sort of know the answer, my first question is how did we reach the point where something so fundamental could be so insecure and distributed to so many people?
In the original Unix security model, there was no security concern with this (except maybe for chroot environments): it didn't allow a process to do something it couldn't otherwise do, since all processes owned by a uid had exactly the same rights. Now that we've started sandboxing user processes in various ways on macOS and Linux, that's no longer the case, and we suddenly need to crack down on useful tools like strace and gdb.
Perhaps if the ACM renamed the Turing Award to "The Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Computer Science", the Nobel Foundation would let them get away with it.