Look, while I am sure what Musk says is very important, what is also important it's that many millions of people live (used to live?) on territories Russia claims. Ukraine cannot just give up on its citizens. Certainly not because Musk says something on Twitter. If it does, and does it easily, how am I as a Ukrainian citizen to know that my region (a would-be border region) is not next to be given up on?
> Since the beginning of the war, there are literally hundreds of similar examples. Not calling it appeasement would earn you the title of "Russian asset".
The point is that a famous name gives an edge in peer review to a (potentially mediocre) paper written primarily by somebody else with the famous name appended.
> You clearly haven't ever bought a ticket. £30 please, unless you want to travel after 10am, then it'll be 25, oh wait you want to go via Reading that'll be 40. Haha, you got through the barrier tapping your oyster card? That doesn't work out here!
That statement surprised me as well. Isn't "Off Peak" lingo confusing for foreign visitors? I know I used to find it annoying to have to care about that, and how there are different kinds of "Anytime" tickets that do or do not cover multiple rail networks.
Isn't there a difference between not hanging out with drunk people and not drinking alcohol? Some people have a glass of wine with their meal, for instance.
Perhaps, surprisingly, it might go both ways: when I know who is on the PC, I think I can tell which person wrote which review, because I both know their work and met them personally. In fact, those people on the PC is why I am submitting to a venue in the first place, because I want reviewers who will easily understand my work.
I think your question makes a lot of sense in the general case, but in case of NASA it very well might be that they scratched their heads, came up with requirements and found that they don't care about there being an ecosystem of any kind due to special nature of their requirements.
> Especially if an open ISA means that our systems will be more portable and faster to develop.
So I understand that RISC-V does not immediately impose licensing fees, but how does that translate into portability and speed of development? I'd think that tools and toolchains do not especially benefit from there not being licensing fees, and do benefit from somebody paying cool kernel/compiler hackers. Tools hardware designers use as well as the designs themselves will stay closed. What am I missing?
The distintion between Rust and C looks interesting. Are there any formal (or formal-ish) grounds for saying that only authors of unsafe code need to be aware of Undefined Behaviour in Rust? With MiniRust, would it be plausible that some sort of "black-box abstraction" theorem could be proven, in a way that makes "safe" code depending on "unsafe" code insensitive to undefined behaviours?
Are changes to everyones model of computing actually radical? I mean, I understand that taking advantage of the fact that memory actually persists is actually somewhat non-trivial when done via byte-addressable accesses, and that even with libraries that will be doing these things, developers gain a new set of properties to worry about, but... isn't this all optional? Why can't software treat persistent memory as just a lot denser RAM?
Importantly, you have to be a permanent resident in the UK to host your family.
I respect the UK's immigration policy, and very much appreciate the chance to pursue an exciting job opportunity in the UK that I took a year ago. And yet it saddens me that I cannot help my family in the period of uncertainty by offering a certain path to safety.
I am not Dutch (much like many people here), so your rhetoric question is difficult for me to understand. What happened? What did you expect to happen? What was the purpose of that referendum in the Netherlands in the first place? Was it a binding one? UPD. And, importantly, why is it all relevant to the topic?
Tangentially to the topic of discussion, I have seen analogies of the following phrase so many times by now:
> I’d also formed a hypothesis, based on a certain bluntness and lack of social tact he exhibited, that Daniel might be on the autism/Asperger’s spectrum.
And yet I am not sure what people mean to communicate by bringing in autism and Asperger's into the picture. What is up with questioning people's mental health just to explain bluntness and lack of social tact? Is that an instant self-correction to the negative observation about somebody, to remind yourself to be compassionate just in case?
In another tab I have a Meduza article open listing how the rhetorics of President of Kazakhstan has shifted from using words like "a demonstration" to "an international terrorist group". Assuming that Meduza's compilation is accurate, and if Kazakhstan keeps redefining the narrative, what is so strange about many foreign media outlets not keeping up with that?
Historically, Israeli computer scientists have been able to apply and win ERC grants. That said, I have not checked if anything has changed for the UK in this regard, hence why I am curious.
I did not understand that point at all. The author writes: "The loss of this funding and scientific exchange is a major loss for British and European academia — and innovative companies who need to hire the best scientific and technical talent." But what is it exactly that the UK lost [funding-wise, science-wise] due to Brexit?
> Since the beginning of the war, there are literally hundreds of similar examples. Not calling it appeasement would earn you the title of "Russian asset".
How does such a title matter?