> quick search seems to indicate that Boeing certainly makes campaign donations
Of course they do [1]. They're a defence contractor. They give to a lot of electeds. But far from every elected. (I'd be shocked if they weren't giving to everyone on those subcommittees.)
What's bunk is believing someone receving $5k from Boeing is in their pocket. They're not. They've likely never spoken. This is all nonsense used to justify inactivity. Which is baffling, since it seems to require as much effort as (albeit less social interaction than) engagmeent.
A function called ':' is defined. In its body, it calls itself twice at the same time (':|:') (piping the output of the first call into the second, which doesn't do anything useful) and sends these calls to the background ('&'). After function ':' is finished being defined, it is called.
The first call spawns two clones. Each of those spawn two more. Etc.
:() defines a new function called :
{ :|:& } is the body of the function, where we call the : function recursively, piping (|) its output to another call to :, then backgrounding the whole thing (&)
; indicate the end of a statement and the start of a new one
: and finally the last : calls the function we defined to start the chain
Essentially each time the function is ran, it creates 2 new copies of itself, which each create 2 copies of themselves, etc. until your OS stops responding and crashes.
Nowadays many shells recognize this particular fork bomb and refuse to execute it
From what I understand this is not about forcing individuals to use one platform it another, but rather about what the official instances themselves use. And I very definitely think the people can and should force the EU to switch away from platforms like Twitter
I'm not sure if this was exaggerated on our side of the straight, but here we read quite a lot about Brexit politicians (including Boris Johnson) complaining about made up EU regulations they'd have to follow (a famous example was the ban on curved bananas)
I have often seen people on HN with mind boggling (to me) incomes to whom houses that seem relatively very inexpensive are inaccessible. Why is that? Naively I would think you could rent for 30k/y and save enough in just a few years to buy a house without a mortgage
At the same time people start earning those incomes, they are also paying $20k to $30k per year per kid for daycare. Couple that with $50k+ retirement savings (max 401k and HSA) and 2 $50k cars, and it can seem tight.
Also, the higher the pay, the rarer the source of income, and so lower probability of replacing your income if you lose your job. That means you might want to put down more than 20% to ensure your monthly mortgage payment is still possible even if your income drops by 30% to 50%. Such as if the wife has pregnancy complications and cannot work, etc.
I'm not an expert in any of these, but in the past few years, in addition to the success of LLM's for natural language processing, I have repeatedly read about the impressive advances in SAT solvers and in proof assistants.
Given how impressive LLM's are in spite of their inability to reliably perform reasoning tasks or follow instructions with logical strictness, I wonder how much more impressive it could get if such systems got integrated
You will enjoy "Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanations". It prompts LLM to generate tree of explanations and run MAX-SAT solver over it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11822
Are you sure? A quick search seems to indicate that Boeing certainly makes campaign donations