Banners are in no way mandated, though. As the quoted text states, you need to have a policy easily available - the same as you'd have any other legal information on your website. Typically it isn't served on banners or popups, but e.g. in the page footer.
You also need to have the right to refuse, which is a non-issue if tracking is opt-in, or only happens in a necessary context like user login, where you can inform the user that it's about to happen.
It's a more or less deliberate misunderstanding to claim that you need popup banners because of EU regulation, and it seems to be said mainly in order to mask the fact that applications are designed to be hostile to privacy in the first place.
> Year of the Linux on the desktop might never come
I'm not even sure what that would mean practically. By brute market share, possibly not. But I've had Ubuntu as my personal daily driver for many years, and at the moment it's honestly just a much better experience than either Windows or macOS.
Microsoft and Apple seem to have turned their operating systems into advertising platforms for their other products, largely disregarding the basics of what makes a desktop actually work well.
Most of Hancock's claims aren't really provable by evidence, or there hasn't been much research done to produce it. He's essentially saying "Isn't this curious? Scientists should look into it.", and "What if this alternative explanation is true?".
This is unlike other "proper" conspiracy theories that claim to know the facts, and present made-up evidence to back up their claims, while ignoring any actual scientific proof that works against them.
Critics can ridicule his claim that an advanced ice-age civilization existed all they want (and there are good counter arguments that do just that[1]), but it's certainly curious that advanced structures were built by what modern history tells us should've been hunter-gatherer groups, millennia before the birth of the oldest civilizations we know about. This is worth thinking about, but more importantly, scientifically researching, so that we can have a better understanding of our past and ancestors.
The more Hancock is ignored, ridiculed and labeled as a crackpot, the more it feels like the scientific community doesn't want to research this for whatever reason, thus proving some of his points.
> Most of Hancock's claims aren't really provable by evidence, or there hasn't been much research done to produce it. He's essentially saying "Isn't this curious? Scientists should look into it."
Why should they, though? He seems to be staking much of his credibility on vague accusations that someone is not doing the work. Mostly the case seems to be that his propositions are not being ignored, they simply lack substance.
The thing is, the less evidence you have, the easier it is to come up with any number of stories that "fit" the data points. Historians therefore need to be extremely conscious about only drawing conclusions that have an undisputed record supporting them. That is the whole basis of the scientific methodology; if you can't get the evidence, you have no argument.
The period Hancock has chosen to focus on is commonly called "prehistory" for a good reason, as without any written records, there's not much of a basis to build any kind of narrative that stands up to scrutiny. Especially if you only cherry-pick data points that fit your assumptions, and wilfully ignore a gigantic void in the rest of the known record.
Surely that is a problem with the credibility of the claims themselves, and not the rest of the world.
Because of what I mentioned in my previous comment. Because we don't have a scientific answer to how a group of nomadic hunter-gatherers would be able to construct some of these complex monolithic structures, millennia before the dawn of modern civilizations. The timelines we're talking about here certainly make it difficult to gather any conclusive evidence, but the fact that these structures are understudied points to deficiencies in modern archaeology.
Hancock never claims to have the definitive answer to these questions, and from my exposure to his work, he always phrases his claims as a "what if ...?" scenario. He weaves some loosely related myths into a somewhat coherent narrative, but it's clear that as a journalist, he has no scientific qualifications, nor has he done scientific research to present any definitive conclusions.
My point is that any reasonably well educated person who is not already prone to conspiracy theories shouldn't find his work to be conspiratorial or untrue, but mostly interesting and entertaining. Rather than dismiss his wild ideas as being "pseudoscientific" (which is ridiculous, considering he never claims to be a scientist), we should invest more in funding actual scientific research so that we can get some valid answers. Until then, I'll find shows like Ancient Apocalypse very entertaining.
As I remember, the initial versions of Git would have been a chore to use; the intention was for it to be only the "plumbing", with a more friendly front-end layered on top. So it took a good few years to change that, and for it to catch on.
I believe USB HID drivers have been in userspace for quite some time, in part precisely to provide a stable interface. I'm not sure why the Wacom drivers are an exception though: https://linuxwacom.github.io/
B12 supplementation is recommended for a vegan diet at any age. Besides that, I'm not sure what you mean by careful management. Eating a normal varied diet where the proteins come from plant sources gets you covered.
Yet on the page strictly about babies and children, the recommendation is to "[use] a moderate amount of poultry meat and some red meat as a source of protein. [...] Eating fish two to three times a week is recommended for the whole family."
There's far too many stories of babies dying of malnutrition on vegan diets. While it's possible to make them healthier for them, let's not go saying it's recommended, just like children can survive on crappy junk food (and plenty of them sadly have to), provided it's fortified with nutrients for them. There's a difference between surviving and thriving.
That site is a bit confusingly laid out; the page I linked to introduces the vegan diet for all age groups, while the part you quoted concerns the recommendations for the omnivore diet. In the material that maternity clinics hand out, the equivalent vegan recommendation for first solid proteins are tofu and red lentils. The linked full set of recommendations also covers more specifics for infants and toddlers: https://www.julkari.fi/handle/10024/137770
Basically the only exception is infant formula, unless the child has a diagnosed milk allergy. There's also a general recommendation against restricted, e.g. macrobiotic and raw diets.
> There's a difference between surviving and thriving.
And you have given no proof that a child can't thrive on a vegan diet. Surely it's not something a public health authority recommends, because people generally aren't vegan.
I can't find any study supporting that a vegan diet for infants and children can't be as healthy as a non-vegan diet. There are always outliers, but you also have children on non-vegan diets that are missing vitamins and nutrients.
That very same link states that "a carefully composed vegan diet" can be beneficial. Thats my point -- with a vegan diet you have to be much more conscientious about nutrition. Many people are not. With your average healthy omnivorous diet, you rarely have any significant nutrient deficiencies that you have to worry about. Said diet ends up being simpler to implement in practice. That's what I mean by careful management; A healthy vegan diet for children is not impossible, but it takes more effort.
You say "much more", but the models of healthy eating don't really differ that much in practice. Both prescribe a balanced plate with carbs, proteins, and "other" vegetables. The omnivore model calls for half the plate being vegetables, while the vegan plate is divided into equal thirds.
That of course being the rule of thumb, and obviously people don't necessarily build every meal to exactly that pattern. A pizza night every now and then is okay too.
> rarely have any significant nutrient deficiencies
People in the Nordics are usually already supplementing at least vitamin D due to lack of sunlight, and often iodine due to a lack of it in the soil. So in this context, switching to a combined vegan supplement that includes those as well as B12 is a relatively small change.
The end result is unsafe Rust that uses raw pointers. This kind of tool can be used e.g. as a starting point for rewriting codebase piece by piece, retaining the original functionality as a baseline.
Would you be more likely to use something like the escrow system described above? Or is there an alternative mechanism that you'd be more interested in?
> We have already seen early Rust code not compiling with new compiler releases.
I haven't really seen that happen with post-1.0 Rust, which is everything onwards of early 2015. I believe they've since tightened a couple of edge cases due to soundness issues, but nothing worse than that.
Would be interesting to hear about your contrary experiences.
No, it's on stable rust, maybe you got confused by the bug report talking about the nixos-unstable channel, that has nothing to do with the rust nightly builds, it's the version of nixos that is currently under development.
This is true for aarch64, but if you're not doing an embedded-linux style project, it's very likely you'll need nightly for inline assembly, though a significant chunk of that is being stabilized as we speak (though sadly not yet enough for my work...)
Good point. Though you can always link to .S for that last bit, right? I don't mean to tell you your business, I know you folks are doing much more intense stuff than I am. It doesn't surprise me that you'd know exactly what's keeping you from using stable.
You may have started getting deprecation warnings because some methods in the `Error` trait have been deprecated [1] in favor of a different mechanism.
Then, you may have configured warnings to result in compilation errors in your build/project, however, I would argue this situation is not what most people would understand as "code not compiling due to a compiler update".
Deprecation should be the only change to Error in the last six years. It hasn’t moved. If you ever get a repro would love to hear about it! This kind of thing doesn’t happen at the scale we’re at anymore, if it did there would be an uproar.
Maybe a more constructive way to look at this would be that people simply do "dumb" things. In customer support where you only see those moments, it might not always seem that way, but dealing with people's simple mistakes is also educating them to do better next time.
People can be ignorant, lazy, not give a shit about the work they are doing, have poor learning ability and or skills, and cross their fingers, mashing buttons, hoping everything just works, and then expect everyone else around them to help them out of their screw ups.
If you've ever worked in CS, or known anyone that works in CS, you know that there are an absolute fucking shitload of these people. Often in roles they are unqualified for and with privileges and power no sane person would ever give them.
That's true. It's also true that AWS's IAM system is pretty complex and not incredibly well designed. AWS internally makes mistakes with it with some regularity.
You also need to have the right to refuse, which is a non-issue if tracking is opt-in, or only happens in a necessary context like user login, where you can inform the user that it's about to happen.
It's a more or less deliberate misunderstanding to claim that you need popup banners because of EU regulation, and it seems to be said mainly in order to mask the fact that applications are designed to be hostile to privacy in the first place.