> At a societal level, cars that can automatically fix a "recall" with an over-the-air update are generally better than recalls that will wait to get fixed until an owner schedules an appointment to have the car serviced.
Experience with boxed versus updatable software, particularly video games, says otherwise. When it costs a lot for the manufacturer to fix defects, they put more emphasis on not having them in the first place. Otherwise we just just a parade of defects all the time. Even if it's minor things and never fixed, the user can adapt; that's not possible in the face of continuous updates.
In Vancouver specifically, they'd have issues distinguishing your car from any others on the road, because there's lots of foreign (US/Alberta) plates there for some reason (I understand it's some insurance thing). At least, that seemed to be the case when I was there recently.
Too bad dependabot cooldowns are brain-dead. If you set a cooldown for one week, and your dependency can't get their act together and makes a release daily, it'll start making PRs for the first (oldest) release in the series after a week even though there's nothing cool about the release cadence.
No, not like that. There's a difference between a site that:
1) provides a snapshot of another site for archival purposes.
2) provides original content.
You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks.
By modifying its archives, archive.today just flushed its credibility as an archival site. So what is it now?
> You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks.
As an end user of Wikipedia there are occasions where content has been scrubbed and/or edits hidden. Admins can see some of those, but end users cannot (with various justifications, some excellent/reasonable and some.. nebulous). That's all I'm saying, nothing about Congress or such other nonsense. It seems like an occasion of the pot calling the kettle names from this side of the fence.
> What I don't see on that page is where they explicitly don't promise to not modify anything in the archive.
I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification /i
Meanwhile seriously, if you were disappointed not to see e.g. "We explicitly don't promise not to modify", then perhaps you should consider why, regardless, this site was trusted enough to get a gazillion links in Wikipedia... and HN.
> I'm quoting all of that because is lacks an explicit promise of non-modification.
And I'm quoting all of that because it lacks an explicit (or implicit) promise of modification. :)
It was (emphasis on past-tense) so-trusted because it advertises itself as an archival site. (The linked disclaimer is all about it not being a "long-term" archival site. It says it archives pages for latecomers. There is an implication here that it archives them accurately. What use is a site for latecomers if they change the content to be something else?) If they'd said or indicated they would be changing the content to no longer reflect the original site, Wikipedia would not have linked to them because they wouldn't be a credible source.
In any case, now I can't use them to share or use links since we can no longer trust those archives to be untampered. When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation.
> When I share a link to nyt content on archive.today or copy and paste content into email, I'm putting my name on that declaring "nyt printed this". If that's not true, it's my reputation.
What if the nyt article itself is the problem? How does that square?
I use it in particular for bash, mostly because it has better expositions for parameter expansions. To the point that I know searching for "%%" in particular will get me to the correct section.
For everything else… I think it's also necessary for GNU find expressions?
Unfortunately only the first one (arborist) actually links to something that the workflow outputs (a created issue), so it's hard to see actual examples of what those things do. Some of the earlier comments said they output giant workflow files, but there weren't really any examples either.
Basically it feels like a long article that says "we have this new thing that does cool things", but never gives enough concrete details. It probably worked great for you, but it needs to communicate to random people off the street what the win is.
Basically, you can consider AOM to be a licensing alliances, where the fee is zero.
reply