I kind of assume the opposite problem. If you start with code and then add testing and documentation you may never committed to leave broken things to maintain otherwise inconsistent alternative sources of truth. If you try to maintain these things from the start you probably have a lot of errors that no one is authorized/competent to fix without leaving behind references to incorrect truths, even if it is only in a less frequent contributor's mind.
If the point is continued legal meaning then it would be better to digitally publish in any way that allows distributed verification of the record as what was published and not challenged.
Probably thousands of people have some means to tamper with that archive, but courts don't really care to revisit hundred year old wills in the ways soap operas imply.
In a consumer context it seems pretty harmless compared to the manipulation by design of the profit driven side in B2C or even B2B transactions. I thought the article was going to go toward the political tactic, which is highly unethical and requires a response of not tolerating any stupidity to penalize the fakers.
I'd don't really see a difference between sending an email to a list or to a maintainer. Maybe that's an argument for not adding and adapting to unnecessary concepts like a web based pull request.
I don't think the world would be a very ecologically diverse place if all continents were as domesticated as Europe. When we argue that Africa, Asia and South America should protect large predators, I think it rings hollow if we have no remorse and no restoration projects.
Whatever equilibrium we've reached in Europe might need to change with more wild predators eating birds and cats.
Any level of random sampling is a serious concern for a conglomerate like P&G with both many products and high volume. Negasmart may be able to sell for years at a substantial volume for them, at a considerably higher price compared to BRICS, before their first finding. I would like to see evidence from the FDA that they aren't just lucky on this one detection, (if it even was detected by them before doctors/parents reports.)
The regulators seem a bit condescending about other countries. Given everything I've heard about US import and food controls the manufacturer may have intentionally chosen the US since they could not anticipate losing the lottery and being properly tested.
Might backfire by forcing Russia to simplify their tax system which aside from economic gains could also free up thousands of accountants for the front line.
Refusing to hire the workers of partners would be a worse problem. But their offer sounded a lot to me like they were presuming access to salary information, etc. In a proper system neither microsoft nor salesforce would know if a candidate was bluffing about their pay, internal evaluations, etc, beyond customary things like references. Being guaranteed a job could mean being unable to play biggest a-hole with HR without an information disadvantage. In the worst case that data could have transferred before anyone even attempted to utilize the offer and as it turned out never needed the offer.
Given past crimes by big tech they should be examined extremely carefully.
The difference seems too small not to rule out all sorts of things, but the general idea would be that you can't predict shorter/longer for one minor change, so the average of samplings of each should be similar unless the thing modified relates to terseness in the training set.
I'm not sure suburban and rural problems are as relevant as density in an apartment building. You can add APs, etc, but you can't stop collisions with neighbors.
Inventing new things who cares, but for existing key sequences its a problem even if the new sequence would have been better. Imagine when some of these soft cars start adding power steering in an overnight update.
Companies usually do the name change correctly.. This is more like the artist who should always have been referred to as Prince. Telling people about the other name isn't an updated reference it is a lost reference.
The de-google issue is Google's proprietary play/Gapps setup which expects to have higher privileges and sells itself as nicer APIs and cloud services to app developers. Many apps can just fallback since not all regions and devices use official Google Android, etc. The other alternatives to not installing any support for them are, installing them like normal but on your non google distribution, an emulator of the services like microg, or wrapping them to put them in the standard app cage like grapheneOS does.