deleted by creator

Hydrogen and oxygen burn explosively. It wouldn’t last long

Do you have some number about that? It’s a big claim that majority of working italians are against it.

It must be improved, but the idea was correct. Something similar exists everywhere in Europe

Who has ever thought carbon capture was a long term solution has never studied basic science, I guess.

Carbon capture has its uses, but selling it as long term solution is clearly just a way used by lobbyist that exists just because politicians are usually very ignorant on everything other than politics

It requires continuous expansive improvements. It is like real world. Building a system robust to frauds works on the short term, but on the mid and long term is impossibile. That is why laws change, evolve, we have governments and so on. Because system reacts to your rules and algorithms, making them less effective.

And these continous expensive improvements are done daily, but it is a difficult job

It is not at the moment. Models are built on the assumption of stability, i.e. that what they are modelling doesn’t change over time, doesn’t evolve. This is clearly untrue, and cheating is a way the environment evolves. Only way to consider that, is to create a on-line continous learning algorithm. Currently this exists and is called reinforcement learning. Main issue is that methods to account for an evolving environment are still under active research. In the sense that methods to address this issue are not yet available.

It is an extremely difficult task tbf

Out of curiosity what model did you use?

Do you have examples? It should only happen in case of overfitting, i.e. too many identical image for the same subject

It’s a slippery slope. What about consultant developers that worked on the codebase of photoshop 10 years ago, whose code is still used in the current version? Do they deserve a percentage of the subscription? And architect who designed it?

This is the reason studios can do this, because the contract was very exceptional, and they want to make it similar to any other industry, where freelances and employees do not share any long term revenue

They don’t remove bugs, but it is easier to solve them without having to wait for some random guy to answer on stack overflow.

I don’t know now (I haven’t asked a question in ages) but to get a good answer on stack overflow it used to take weeks sometimes

GitHub issues are usually more useful

People isn’t considering that documentation has greatly improved over time, languages and frameworks have become more abstract, user-friendly, modern code is mostly self explanatory, good documentation has become the priority of all open source projects, well documented open source languages and frameworks have become the norm.

Less people asking programming related questions can be explained by programming being an easier and less problematic experience nowadays, that is true.

They want to approve the whole environment, including os, even if virtualized or not

Why are you so aggressive? Lack of sleep? I was just asking

Even more “we’ll decide if you are worthy to get my data”

I believe he is talking about secure boot

https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot

Are you something else? What’s your work schedule?

The fact that it is work that I don’t want to do… Pretty much

I read it, and I read the messages from the devs. The communication issue I am trying to point is also highlighted in the comments: if the decision on merging a PR is uniquely dictated by financial benefits of IBM, ignoring the broader benefits of the community, the message is that red hat is looking for free labor and it is not really interested in anything else. Which is absolutely the case, as we all know, but writing it down after the recent events is another PR issue, as red hat justified controversial decisions on the lack of contributions from downstream.

The Italian dev tried to put it down as “we have to follow our service management processes that are messy, tedious and expensive” but he didn’t address the problems in the original message. The contributor himself felt like they asked his contribution just to reject it because of purely financial reasons without any additional details. It is a new PR incident

The Apparently is already patch on fedora… Just reporting other comments in this thread. But why do they accept contribution to centos of they don’t want patches that are not economically beneficial to the company? It is a pretty bad message written as this

I stopped recommending it. It is a pity, but there are alternatives