What it needs is for the rig you have now to be basically playable. If it’s playable on Windows, it should be playable on Linux. Losing a couple of fps is frankly not a big deal if it’s still overall playable.

Setting aside some anti-cheat issues, it mostly is. Nvidia has some abysmal inconsistencies in a few titles.

And yet there’s still LTT forum idiots posting on how “Steve is just running a drama channel”.

So you bring out “this is my second language” after telling someone else “you might want to put more effort into reading”. No, that does not fly. You put “sorry, English is my second language” first. Lashing out like that is not a good look.

A bit of Perl code from the late 90s/early 2000s that worked something like this (working from memory, untested):

my $hits = `grep $search_string $file`;
my @lines = split /\n/, $hits;
my @real_hits;
for( my $i = 0; $i < scalar(@lines); $i++ ) {
    my $line = $lines[0];
    if( $line =~ /$search_string/ ) {
        push @real_hits, $line;
    }
}

Let me explain a bit about what this does. Instead of reading a file line-by-line and using Perl’s regex engine to match, it uses backticks to call out to the shell for grep. Those are split up by line. Then go through those lines (in a C-style for loop, not the perfectly good foreach version that Perl has had for a long time) and now we use a regex to match that line. You know, just in case shell grep didn’t do its one job.

If anything, I’m probably making this code look better by declaring variables with my and following use strict standards.

This was written by a guy who was the main programmer before I was hired. I was told he was a real piece of shit. He often had some checks in his code that, if not passed, threw messages to the client like “WE HAVE DETECTED YOUR HACKING AND LOGGED YOUR IP ADDRESS WE’RE GOING TO GET YOU”. Never met him personally, but his code is a pretty good example of why everyone came to hate Perl.

I can’t load a stress how bad your proofreading is. Don’t blame that on others.

No, no, they’re saying Kotlin seams together the fun.

China has built a couple of reactors recently. They also went overbudget and overschedule.

Some years ago, they had to raise the limit on the number of classes in an Android app in order to let Facebook work. That should tell you everything.

Quantum encryption will be “broken” the same way as conventional crypto is: side channels. It’s nice to have, but it doesn’t solve the most common attacks.

If money is going to be irrelevant, then he should give his all away right now. Get ahead of that curve.

The conclusion of the NS Savannah was that it would have been economical after the oil crisis of the 1970s caused a price spike in fuel costs. Ports also need facilities and training to handle nuclear fuel. Once you have that, it’s perfectly viable.

Unlike energy generation on land, there isn’t a lot of alternatives for decarbonizing marine transport.

Medical isotopes don’t necessarily need to be created in power reactors.

High-latitudes is a very limited application. Very few people live in areas where solar isn’t viable. They also tend to have a lot of space for wind power and some potential geothermal. Long distance HVDC lines shouldn’t be discounted, either.

Marine power is where I hope SMRs actually work out.

Yeah, even before the techbros showed up, there was this industry push to try to convince people that regulation was the problem. If we loosened the bolts just 10%, everything would work out, they think. Attacking the “linear no threshold model” seems to be the latest strategy.

It’s almost like there’s a reflexive need to blame government regulation on all the problems.

Even ignoring AI datacenter builds, we still need clean energy. I would be all for nuclear fission if it were at all economically viable. It just isn’t.

It’s not even trying to solve the right problem. In the US, the NRC has given out licenses for new reactors. They’re sitting there without the funding needed to go forward.

I have no doubt that licensing is a long process. It should be. That’s how we keep fission power safe. But the more fundamental reason they’re not getting built is because they reliably blow their budget and schedule.

Cloudfare, OTOH, is not an ACID compliant database.

Today, we remind you that AWS isn’t the only single point of failure on the Internet.

On a tangent, I appreciate this bit in Daniel Whiteson’s answer:

“I’m not a fan of categorizing things as ‘science’ or ‘not science,’ because who knows what nerdy curiosity will lead to a discovery?”

And also in Thomas Van Riet’s answer:

“People say that without experiment we cannot call one theory better than another. That is plain wrong. There are many consistency checks, which are ridiculously hard to pass. Can you compute black hole entropy? String theorists were able to compute it in very idealized circumstances and reproduced Hawking’s famous formula for black hole entropy!”

You’ll sometimes see flat earthers, creationists, etc. taking a textbook definition of the Scientific Method, claim that anything that doesn’t do that is “not science”, and therefore wrong. Except that’s not at all how it works. The important part is gathering data to support your claims. That data could be experimental, but it could also be observational.

Our long nightmare of commodity hardware and open ecosystems is finally coming to an end!

You mean the AI slop that is the entire post?