So it's hard to imagine biological life (chemical life?) without water or carbon, since they're such good solvents and building blocks, but we can at least imagine electronic or mechanical life which don't require them.
But what you can't get away from is heat dissipation.
Any life will use energy will generate heat will need to dissipate heat to maintain homeostasis.
Could you dissipate enough heat to exist at <10K, to maintain a technological civilization? Or would you be reduced to supercooling your entire environment?
Are there naturally occurring pools of liquid helium out there in the universe, maintained by natural processes, or are you left with vacuum relying on radiative cooling?
As I understand it, anyone with commit permissions can commit a PR, no matter what the community or even other devs think. So, no debate. Just commit and that's it. I don't even remember ever seeing a "block commit" setting or something that would prevent commiting a PR before discussion takes place and "block commit" is lifted.
Anyway, the discussion is pointless. Poettering approved. He probably would have commited the PR himself if he saw it in time.
Not just the price, the physical volumes. China's central bank has been discounting their bonds beyond what the market can support in order to get more free cash to buy up as much metal as possible as soon as possible, to the point that people are making millions this month just in the arbitrage from buying up everything in the London and Chicago exchanges to give to China.
It's worth noting, though, that that config option was only introduced in kernel version 6.8! Before then the option didn't exist and you could write with impunity to mounted devices (as root, obviously).
Did they increase profits and/or stock price or not? That's the only relevant question. Not what happend to Office.com or what you think about their products.
Also, you and me are not the customers. Govs and corporations are.
> Not what happend to Office.com or what you think about their products.
I don't understand this point. Are you suggesting that less people being happy with their product and thus less people buying it is not related to the valuation of the company and their stock?
> Also, you and me are not the customers. Govs and corporations are.
Huh?
I get you're trying to make a point about the bottom line, but that doesn't mean the bottom line is impervious to bad product decisions or that the people who are paying for their products are not in fact their customers.
Less people buying don't count much compared to the volumes bought by govs and corps.
Also, windows and office bought by govs and corps isn't the same edition as the one bought (usually) by home users, so they're not as dissatisfied by what they bought compared to home users. In fact, some of the features such as automatic unavoidable updates, are demanded by their usual clients.
Parent is pointing at the fact that the relationship between our perception of MS products and their financial success is highly inelastic. The bottom line isn't impervious to bad product decisions, but there can be a large number of user hostile decisions that PMs push through that still increase revenue on the whole even at the cost of user satisfaction, before they move past the optimal point in the payoff curve.
How would that work? Backdoors usually go the other way: malware calls home. How can the first router in the chain differentiate TLS backdoor traffic from the 3rd router (the one with access to your LAN) from legitimate traffic from LAN?
It's most likely because of deindustrialization of those countries, not efficiency increase [1]. Aluminium production (electrolysis), steel production (arc furnace), heavy manufacturing (lathes, drills, welding, various motors, robots, etc.) were all moved elsewhere.
You may argue that Jevon's paradox might not apply to home power use. I mean, how many lights and how many refrigerators could one house possibly have? But AI use and it's associated power consumption is VERY susceptible to Jevon's paradox.
> I mean, how many lights and how many refrigerators could one house possibly have?
Once-upon-a-time a "bright" bulb consumed 80W of power. Today we achieve the same light output with 8W of LEDs, and order of magnitude decrease in power consumption. Multiply that by every home, every street light, every office build, every airport, hospital and stadium. That kinda improvement in efficiency adds up very quickly.
Sure plenty of developed countries have deindustrialised, but most the heavy industry that been lost was lost before mass electrification. Arc furnaces, large scale aluminium production etc. These are all pretty modern technologies. If you look at the UK the only major steel foundry left is a gas fired blast furnace, we basically have zero arc furnaces, because we deindustrialised before the damn things we're being used for large scale steel production.
Electrification of heavy industry is a surprisingly recent trend, and is only really happening in countries that aren't deindustrialising, and view continual process improvement in heavy industry as an important long term activity.
Also I think climate control is quite susceptible to Jevin's paradox, especially since heavier use of air conditioning requires heavier use of air conditioning by other people in the area.
reply