The US is only such a powerhouse, because they generally have the support of their allies. That makes it the unparalleled biggest economic block in the world.
But without their allies, USA isn’t that much stronger than China economically. And USA wouldn’t be nearly the powerhouse they’ve gotten used to be.

So China just has to look on and do nothing, while USA is losing their world dominance quickly.

Maybe I’m wrong, but as I read the article, Linus isn’t convinced this is a good idea either.
I’m not saying things can never change, but opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.

That does NOT sound like a good idea.

We’ve turned our development model into a well-oiled engineering marvel,

Exactly, and I’m pretty sure one of the reasons is that it’s remained on C, and NOT switched to C++, as has been often suggested.
The second they make it a mixed code base, that’s the same second quality will deteriorate. Mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.

Edit:

Torvalds eventually responded by defending the Linux kernel development process and scolding Martin for grandstanding on social media about the issue. Martin later quit as a Linux maintainer and resigned from the Asahi Linux project.

Seems like Linus isn’t onboard with this.

But I guess all the downvoters know better?

opening for a mixed code base is a recipe for disaster.

Greg Kroah-Hartman:

Yes, mixed language codebases are rough, and hard to maintain, but we are kernel developers, dammit.

That’s special pleading, that lacks basis in reality. Still he admits it’s rough to mix codebases.

I’m not claiming Rust wouldn’t be brilliant in some situations, but the detraction of a mixed codebase is worse than the benefit.

I didn’t know that, but yes, it would probably seem confusing to use different terminologies for essentially the same thing.

Yes of course, bi-fold rolls equally well. 👍

Although dubbed a trifold, the phone has three mini-panels and folds only twice.

It’s three elements that can fold together.
It’s probably called tri- because it rolls better on the tongue than dual or double fold.

But goddam €3.499m,- is a steep price, especially considering there were initial reports of quite serious problems with it.

Are you acting stupid on purpose? There are many ways to extend a contract, this would be an extension to the new company, do you think things can only be extended in time?
Also an extended contract doesn’t have to be the literal same contract, but can be a new contract that replaces the old one, but with extra things added.

No not really, I said license agreements they’ve received from other companies. That’s just ONE VERY SPECIFIC form of contract, not contracts in general.

Obviously if both parties agree, they can extend the contract to the new company without problem.
How does that confuse you?

transferable rights

That’s the point, how can those exist without consent???

If that’s the case they have no right to extend their license to another company.

No. The party not being sold should be able to void the contract

Of course if both parties want to continue the contract, there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

Still the contract should be void, when the legal entity ceases to exist.
When a company is bought, it’s not the same legal entity or “person”.

Seems to me this is merely arbitrary bullshit, where American courts tend to favor American companies.

If this is true, why then couldn’t Arm prevent Qualcomm from using a license agreement they had with a company Qualcomm bought?
The Arm Qualcomm case is bullshit, if you make a license agreement with a company that is later bought by a bigger company, it’s no longer the same “legal person”. And should absolutely void the license.

My wife actually used that for something she needed to be able to remote control a few years back. She tells me it an amazing chip. 😀

1999, 1991 is Yeltsin,

You are absolutely right, my bad on that one. But actually under Yeltsin there was still room for optimism, and in those years cooperation between the west and Russia increased.

Wow you are way off time wise, I spoke of the 70’s and 80’s. Everything you mention is AFTER that.
The Foss idea is early 80’s and EFF was created in the mid 80’s, and as I mentioned, based on the ideology of the 70’s.
The turnaround was after Carter when Reagan was elected, not just in USA, but also in most of Europe.

I actually think that USSR’s breakup is what long-term caused how our world has become worse.

I agree, but initially it was all cool, a lot of Europe achieved freedom and democracy, and the Soviet states turned to democracy. We even had cooperation between the West and Russia initially. Unfortunately Putin completely ruined that after he came to power in 1991, which is also around the time Linux started.

Basically everybody making a game for Amiga made the equivalent of their own graphics drivers. Programming direct to the specialized hardware, and M68000 assembly was so easy and intuitive it was a joy to use.
But that way of programming apps is completely obsolete today. Now it’s all about abstraction layers. And for a guy like me, it feels like I lost control.
If you want to program “old school” you have to play with things like Arduino.
I’m a relic now, that’s just how it is.

I think it’s more a matter of the ideals of the times, Foss was created in the 80’s, as I see it as an ideological child of the 70’s, a period of time where progress, optimism and idealism about creating a better future and a better world probably peaked.
Of course there is also idealism today, but it’s different, at least the way I see it, the sense of quick progress especially on the humanitarian side is gone, the decades of peace with Russia is broken, and climate change hangs as a threatening cloud above us, and the rise of China creates turbulence in the world order.
So although things maybe weren’t actually better in the 80’s, there are definitely aspects that look very attractive in hindsight.

But as I see it, the mentality for FOSS is now stronger than ever, because aside from idealism, it’s proved itself to also be a pragmatically good choice in many situations. But all the original founders and enablers are of course old today.

And complaining about how “people today” use technology is stupid, because chances are we would have done the same had it been available to us when we were young.

This article has waaayyy too much “if this actually worked it could be used for…” and “instead of other methods that don’t work…”. But waaayy to little about the actual validity of the process.

This is a general trend every fucking time an article claims to have something on CO2 or batteries or global warming. IMO this is probably because the actual idea is bullshit.
Sorry but my ADD prevented me from reading all that non content crap to see if there were actually anything real to read.

What if, instead of pumping the carbon dioxide underground, we made something useful from it?

WOW you’d have to be at least 4 years old to see how brilliant that could be.
What if instead of having your head up your ass, you at this point had already written at least a teaser about how this actually works?
99% sure by now, that this is a fucking waste of time.

Please someone who bothered reading this, inform me if there’s any actual content beneath that load of obvious bullshit.

Edit: Ah OK there came some almost right after what I quoted, but why the fuck do they think they need to lead with all that meaningless babble?

Arm reportedly to start competing with its own customers this year.

A few decades ago, this used to be a sure recipe for losing customers and marketshare, but the world has changed, maybe because the chip market lacks real competition, of course there is competition, but the number of players are too few, and they are too specialized for direct competition.