Because why solve trivial coding problem when experimental bad technology that won’t even work after a many fold increase in implementation time do trick?

As we all know, ai are the best and only solution to complex tasks such as rudimentary file management.

Honestly I was expecting far more downvotes. I posted the video with people like you in mind, who still can think critically are marks without the burden of misinformation and ideology. not being marks.

Ftfy

By the way, if you think you are not subject to ideology, I have several things to sell you.

For anyone else reading: everyone is subject to ideology. The moment you think you arent, that is when you are most trapped by it.

At this point I can only determine you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Much of what you said is very wrong but it’s not worth arguing about.

Or you know, reducing thermal load by using broadly more efficient capacitors allowing you to shove more current in the car. Or by meeting grid scale requirements for car charging by smoothing out the grid impact of a bunch of charging at once. Or any number of benefits.

Ultimately this certainly benefits car charging. It benefits all electronics. No you won’t be getting two second car charges with this.

Almost every electrical system on the planet uses capacitors. Especially high power systems. Of which evs are.

“No real point in mixing capacitors in with a large battery” ?? That’s done literally all the time for both filtering and for intermittent high power output. Like when I say almost every electrical system uses caps, I mean almost every electrical system.

More of an actual comment, good. More efficient capacitors in both speed and heat certainly helps in charging devices of all sizes. Of course it wouldn’t be charging large batteries in seconds, but that doesn’t mean no improvement.

Why do you feel that the researchers are wrong about their physics research?

Why would librewolf specifically advise that you minimize your extensions to decrease client uniqueness if it had no effect on client uniqueness? Someone’s misinformed, and I don’t think its librewolf.

Mitigate some, gain some other, but ultimately there’s always risk, sometimes that risk is realized. That’s how it works.

they’d all have been working somewhere else

… Somewhere else possibly innovating even moreso than where they are…

Because of the flat and nonprofit nature of Lemmy “users pooling money together” is the platform allocating budget.

I’d argue corporations should strive to represent their employees. Corporations don’t deserve to maintain anything, they aren’t people and have no ethical status either.

Nonetheless you’re working double time to make sure the use of ‘reasonable’ with all its connotations is seen as acceptable here. Making sure everyone knows that you think this is normative.

We will not reach a common ground.

Lets be clear, there’s a difference between “reasonable” and “expected behavior” and it’s an important one.

The point is that game developers don’t get royalties the same way say, book writers do, not that the distribution is uneven or exactly unfair in a direct sense.

Social engineering is to gain access circumventing downcode, not really “get a head start”…

Most attacks are entirely social engineering. You’re not breaking into secure databases by pulling ridiculous zero day backdoors when it’s much easier to convince an intern to download a file or give you access directly. These super involved attacks are state actors, and no amount of trying to hide what Linux version is being modified will do anything for you there.

State actors of course also use social engineering

Ultimately the point is hacking really doesn’t involve the kind of subterfuge you’re describing here in a way where " what Linux is it " matters at all. I mean, windows is used for secure systems across the world, it’s hardly secretive.

There are plenty of quantum resistant cryptography methods that already exist and have existed for a decade or more.

I don’t think it really matters whether a potential adversary has a ‘head start’ all that much, security through obscurity doesn’t work super well when it’s going to be deployed to thousands of easily accessible devices anyway. It’d only just be a defense in depth, but even then meh. But it’s neither here nor there, they’ll do it whatever way they feel is best.

It won’t be a security risk once it’s in use, IT across Germany will know within days of deployment. It will almost definitely be a modified version of some probably well known Linux.

That’s not answering the question though.

“Pick a number between 1 and 100” doesn’t mean “grab two d10” or write a script.

Not only is the noise ratio low, this seems like a good lesson in “encyclopedias are not primary sources nor arbiters nor authorities on information.” Yes, people use Wikipedia that way anyway. No, baking in an even lower trust system does not seem like it’s actually a fix to any of Wikipedia’s problems.