Sounds like there was something wrong (at a hardware level) with the network card, so the real fix would be to buy a replacement.
But if disabling a faulty connection you don't need in the first place stops the problem happening, that's a decent workaround... I'd just be a little worried that something else could be faulty on the card if the WoL pin is glitching, so potentially you could have other intermittent issues.
What a terrible comparison; I believe that the current state of America has not yet fallen to the level it was at before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Even after reading the entire article, I still don't understand what the author is trying to convey. In my personal opinion, open-source software is just like what the MIT license implies. By sharing the code I wrote, I give up all rights and also refuse to take on any obligations.
You don't give up rights. You allow others to use, modify, share (etc.) what you did according to the terms of the license. However, you could, e.g., at any time give it to someone else under a different license. Or use it yourself without care for the license terms.
I am not sure where their experimental data came from. I tested it on GPT-4o using the prompt and images they provided, and the success rate was quite high, with significant differences from the results they provided.
The German government subsidizes multinational corporations' oil facilities in China. This article mentions "China" too many times, but what does this have to do with China? Isn't it the multinational companies that are suspected of fraud? Not a single name of any multinational corporation is even mentioned in the article.
The part of China in this situation is that the Chinese government does not allow foreign inspectors into China to check if the sponsored projects are actually doing what they claim, and either China does not check these projects itself or does a bad job at it, thus enabling fraud. I don't know why anyone would sponsor a project in China under these conditions in the first place (or anywhere under similar conditions), but that's a different story.
Of course, that does not change that multinational oil companies are the ones conducting the fraud or that a local Chinese competitor fingered them, so that things came to light.
> China does not check these projects itself or does a bad job at it
> I don't know why anyone would sponsor a project in China under these conditions in the first place (or anywhere under similar conditions), but that's a different story.
No, I don't think so. I have a hunch what you are trying to say, but since I try to not second guess, I would like to hear your argument, why and how China's neglect or ineptitude to hold projects accountable would be a positive feature for a sponsor.
If you want to embezzle funds, would you rather do it through a country with strict checks or a country with no checks at all? The choice of China will give a nice cover against an investigation.
The controlling powers will then divert the resources to these jurisdictions. The sponsor (Germany) will not see a net benefit but this is the problem with public funds since they are disconnected from the tax payer.
Thanks for clearing that up! However, we don't have cases of embezzlement but of fraud. Of course the fraudster, ie. the involved corporations, would have an interest in obfuscating their tracks, but the sponsor would not. The controlling power is the sponsor, ie. the federal ministry of environmental protection, and I doubt they wanted to be defrauded. This is why I said I don't get why anybody would sponsor under these conditions. That's a case of ineptitude and neglect, but not malice.
Germans sponsor such projects in China because European emissions aren't growing much and are an irrelevant slice of global output. If you want to subsidize people to reduce emissions you have to go where the emissions are. At this point the developing world completely dominates emissions and emissions growth:
China, India and Asia swamp all other contributors in terms of growth and (with the exception of America beating India) also absolute amounts. The entire EU emits around the same as India alone.
The current reality is that US and EU per capita emissions are rather flat ATM whereas those of India and China are on the rise.
There is work to do all about, the EU and US could certainly come down per capita (but by how much) and India and China ideally should be capped (but by whom and how) at less per capita than the EU|US currently .. ideally new technology will achieve that while allowing "modern" expectations of consumption.
The future reality is even should that all come to pass we're still looking at a global net increase in emmissions when ideally we very much want a global reduction.
However we as humans in the world get there it's hardly useful to foster international bickering when we all stand to gain through cooperation.
That's irrelevant though for the purposes of this discussion, which is why are Germans funding projects in China. If you care about absolute levels of emissions the west just isn't relevant. All the decisions that matter are being made in Asia. And as we can see from the fraud rates on these projects, they don't care.
> If you want to subsidize people to reduce emissions you have to go where the emissions are.
Emission is everywhere and EU can work to further reduce the emissions they have. e.g. heat pumps vs Gas heater, insulation. Also, it can be done in Africa, SEA to prevent next big wave of emissions coming from there.
> We offer Customers a choice around these practices.
I remembered the joke from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, maybe they will have a small hint in a very inconspicuous place, like inserting this into the user agreement on page 300 or so.
But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.
Seriously, for your sake; don't do this whole "I am the champion of Apple's righteousness" shtick. Apple doesn't care about privacy. That's the bottom line, you lack the authority to prove otherwise.
If the possibility of a psycho in your building makes you nervous, you're probably better off not taking "free candy", and just avoid the stress. (Much like I decided I would rather do half a dozen very cautious measures, than get food poisoning even once.)
For what I put on the free shelves, it's things nearing/at the best-by date, the year and month of that are usually marked prominently in handwritten Sharpie on the front of the package, and I don't put things there if they have any risky signs.
For example, recently, a packet of instant potatoes was nearing best-by date, but the packet seemed puffed up more than usual, like I think I would've noticed when I bought it. So I erred on the side of caution in throwing it away, rather than risk a neighbor, maybe unaware of the suspiciousness, getting sick.
As the comments say:
> Now waiting for the war story from your successor "you'll never guess what I found when I took apart this one server that wouldn't wake-on-lan"
reply