It's possible to imagine LLMs implemented responsibly, but our ruling class has decided against that.
It's possible to imagine LLMs implemented responsibly, but our ruling class has decided against that.
1. The overall architecture (with the JVM) made it slower than the equivalent C# code.
2. C# really started embracing modern language features at a time when Java was kind of languishing (lambda functions, async patterns). Java seems like it's been in perpetual catch-up since then.
(Not OP, disclaimer, I work for Microsoft and this is only my opinion).
The 2024 bipartisan border bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_b...) seemed like a good compromise to me. Of course, it wasn't brought to a vote by the house (for reasons that I won't elaborate on), so it's mostly a hypothetical.
And, if I had to choose between the two, I'm more supportive of the Biden era immigration policy than I am of the current Trump policy.
> The lack of support on LTSC is the least baffling thing going on here but I'm open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something....
And yea, you're right, but Indeed, many people need to use the store on LTSC, especially after Microsoft migrated many ecosystem attempts to the store, for example Microsoft Photos and some extensions like HEIC, and now not only UWP applications can enter the store; regular applications can also do so. It actually poses a very big problem that we cannot use the store anymore, at least that's what I think.
Furthermore, it is not just LTSC 2019 that cannot be used; this means that older versions of Windows (at least 1809 or older) are also no longer able to use it. In other words, we can no longer use the store on older versions of Windows. You might say that Microsoft itself didn't intend to provide support for older versions, and yea, I agree, that's true. However, the fact is that many people use Windows largely because of its compatibility advantages. I believe everyone should at least be aware that Microsoft is not as compatible with older programs, especially its own, which is what I want to express.
As for the license, I would like to clarify that it is only to prevent the packaging scripts from being used for commercial purposes and promotion. As you can see, this repository is not specifically intended for hosting store programs, so it does NOT apply to the store programs themselves, but only to the deployment scripts :)
It explains exactly what it's doing.
"Microsoft Store package for Windows LTSC."
It provides a Microsoft Store package for LTSC builds, and an install script that allows it to actually work. Windows LTSC builds don't have Microsoft Store preinstalled, and Microsoft offers no official way to re-enable it.
Why would you need a package to wrap a website? Wouldn't the website be accessible on a LTSC build, even if the official package isn't available?
If this is filling a highly useful role that I'm admittedly oblivious to, why are there only three commits in the project history?
(Best I can tell, this is a personal project that somehow made it to HN front page)
Why doesn't the README file explain what this repository is doing?
OP, what did you hope to accomplish with this submission?
The lack of support on LTSC is the least baffling thing going on here but I'm open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something....
> "... the guys who had big tech startup successes in the 90s and early aughts think that 'DEI' is the cause of all their problems."
Who is the author referring to here?
(I realize that DEI has been rolled back at some companies, and Zuckerberg in particular has derided it, yet I still feel like the author is referring to some commonly accepted knowledge that I'm out of the loop on.)
However.
I would be lying if I didn't secretly wish that all languages adopted the `|>` syntax from Elixir.
```
params
|> Map.get("user")
|> create_user()
|> notify_admin()
```
(No disagreements with your post, just want to give credit where it's due. I'm also a big fan of the syntax)
The quote above makes absolutely zero sense to me, it's like ChatGPT 0.3a decided to write something about Bluetooth.
I have multiple bluetooth headsets that I use with multiple devices. I have collected a series of tricks that I use when I can't get bluetooth to operate the way I want it to: turning bluetooth on/off, restarting the bluetooth device. "Forget the network" is not one of those tricks, but I wouldn't be surprised if others have learned to use it.