Reuters mentions the execution used a facial mask connected to a tank of nitrogen.

So yeah… No CO2 removal and probably not a perfect seal against outside atmosphere. This is a pretty half-assed implementation.

I’m glad to see for once the fines are proportional to revenue, and not a fixed amount. 6% hurts.

That is one theory, based on a conversation captured on another (not-directly-involved, but on-site) office’s bodycam footage. It isn’t really conclusive, it’s on-scene hearsay from what is likely the downstream end of a game of telephone.

The more productive avenue for discussions, in my opinion, is to consider whether firing pepper balls at non-violent individuals is perhaps negligent or reckless use of force, that escalates the situation without solving anything.

There is a theory based around how ocean tankers’ exhaust historically included sulfates, which can actually seed cloud formation.

Recent emissions regulations reduced this effect, so fewer clouds are being seeded over the ocean, and the oceans are absorbing more sunlight and heating more.

So we were basically painting large swaths of reflective clouds over the oceans, masking the heating. And now we’re seeing unencumbered heating effects.

Although this is likely from crawling, which would apply to any federated social media too once it becomes large enough to be on their radar.

It’s especially infuriating when you have a giant like Microsoft rolling Electron on their flagship applications (Teams), and then deprecating support for some platforms (Linux). What’s the point of your nice, memory-gobbling, platform-agnostic app framework if you’re not even going to use it to provide cross platform support?

Regardless, the article being pointed to makes a weaker claim than the Lemmy title. Bad practice in general, even if it’s known from other sources.

Well the general principle is that you can’t be punished for behavior that was legal when you did it. Otherwise you open the door to “doing X is illegal now” and then locking everyone who was documented doing X in the last several years.

Which maybe sounds nice when it’s destroying the climate… but it’s less nice when it’s gay marriage, alcohol consumption, owning X book, etc.

This is how the legal system typically works when a new law is introduced.

Amdahl’s isn’t the only scaling law in the books.

Gustafson’s scaling law looks at how the hypothetical maximum work a computer could perform scales with parallelism—idea being for certain tasks like simulations (or, to your point, even consumer devices to some extent) which can scale to fully utilize, this is a real improvement.

Amdahl’s takes a fixed program, considers what portion is parallelizable, and tells you the speed up from additional parallelism in your hardware.

One tells you how much a processor might do, the only tells you how fast a program might run. Neither is wrong, but both are incomplete picture of the colloquial “performance” of a modern device.

Amdahl’s is the one you find emphasized by a Comp Arch 101 course, because it corrects the intuitive error of assuming you can double the cores and get half the runtime. I only encountered Gustafson’s law in a high performance architecture course, and it really only holds for certain types of workloads.

ABSOLUTELY. I just recently capped off the Diff Eq, Signals, and Controls courses for my undergrad, and truly by the end you feel like a wizard. It’s crazy how much problem-solving/system modeling power there is in such a (relatively) simple, easy to apply, and beautifully elegant mathematical tool.