BananaTrifleViolin

It's not immovable, it's just locked so you don't accidentally move it by clicking and dragging. Try right locking on the bar in a blank area lower down - the right click menu should have an option for moving it.

Yeah I was surprised they took it down. I think it's a foolish knee jerk reaction and is patronising towards readers.

Ironically there is know nothing to put the current spike of interest in context as you can't read the letter on the guardian website.

I'm actually really unimpressed with the guardians action - they don't respect their readers and clearly no longer believe in freedom of speech. They could have modified the article to put the letter in context themselves rather than link to a 20 year old article criticising it. It also makes it hard for those who want to push back against the letter and answer those who are pushing it.

Ironic for a company that published indie hits like Terraria and fresh mainstream games like A Tale of 2 Sons.

This does not reflect the whole gaming market but rather the failure of publishers to innovate well and make new things people like. Big publishers are risk averse and it's a common path them as they get bigger, and care more about shareholder value or venture capital. They won't take risks, and can't accept failures so they retrench. It's not a recipe for success as that end of the games market is already dominated by big publishers churning out annual versions of their mass market games.

A publisher like 505 r ally only has two possible futures on this road - go bankrupt as they can't compete or get bought out by a big fish who want their IP.

It doesn't say much abou the games market as it's actually very large, vibrant and varied. A publisher like 505 is not on the vanguard of the games market and like most people I had to look them up to even see which games they had published. This is just yet another company being mismanaged into oblivion and well beyond its hey day.

If you implement it from fresh then it is a new program. What matters is what your contract says about what you produce - some contracts pay claim to anything you make even outside of working hours.

Also if you rewrite it, while technically it is a fresh project if there are substantial similarities in how you implement it there could be an argument made that you have reused code that belongs to the company. Even if that is technical false it could be something you'd have to defend sometime in the future. As others have said, implementing the program in a different language and using a different methodology wherever possible should help protect against that.

I think the advice others have given that you should review your contract with a lawyer is sound even if this will be FOSS. It's mainly about ensuring you don't inadvertently open yourself to potential legal repercussions down the line, even if your employers at the moment seem benign. If you do work for a company that lays claim to everything you produce even in your off hours then I would strongly recommend you consider leaving or an exit plan, particularly if you are the sort of person who would be working on your own projects for fun or even your own business ventures.

Yeah I was wondering this too - is 8 the floor, 8 cores or below the value is always the same, but above 8 cores you then get your log progression? I don't know enough about this though.

This feels misleading? They're claiming Linux has been hard coded to 8 cores but from what they describe in the article it is specifically the scaling of the scheduler?

If I understood correctly the more cores you have, the more you could scale up the time each individual task gets on a CPU core without experiencing latency for the end user?

I can see that would have a benefit in terms of user perception Vs efficient use of processing time but it doesn't mean all the cores aren't being used? It just means the kernel is still switching between tasks at say 5ms when it could be doing it at 20ms if you have lots of cores and the user wouldn't notice. I can imagine that would be more efficient but it's definitely not the same as being capped to 8 cores; all the cores and CPUs are being scheduled just not in a way that might be the most optimal for some users.

Is that right? I feel like the title massively overplays the issue if so. It should be fixed but it doesn't affect how many cores are used or even how fasr they work, merely how big the chunks of time each task get to run and how you can "hide" that from desktop users so the experience feels slick?

Incase you still don't, it's referencing a late 80s to mid 90s sitcom Married with Children. It's surprisingly good. Katey Segal who voices Leela played one of the main characters, Peggy.

Almost the whole of black Friday is a nonsense. The only things worth buying are things you would have bought anyway but know are on discount.

Many items prices go up for a period before black Friday so they can then be discounted, and manufacturers even have cheaper versions of models of their products that they supply to discount chains and companies like Amazon for black Friday.

The only things I'd buy on sale are items I'm watching via camelcamelcamel which have hit discount, or software on discount. There are a few specific items I need to buy that I might buy if they're genuinely on discount but most of the stuff thrust in your face during the sales is cheap tat or lies.

Nah, this needs legal reform. Intellectual Property laws have been set up to benefit rights holders, not general citizens. They have been extended and reinforced again and again thanks to intense lobbying from rights holders to make bank under the current system.

The defense is always thrown out that it protects the livelihoods of smaller IP holders. However a system that enshrines IP rights for things for 70 years after someone has died for example is patently not there to protect the author; is is there to enrich those who buy or inherit rights yet had nothing to do with their creation.

IP laws need drastic reform. Abandonware is just one of many examples where citizens have to break the law to bypass the shitty status quo.

I'd go back and prevent the 11th Sept attacks.

The world would be a different place because so much happened as a knock on of that but at the same time it's hard to imagine what the world would be like. Probably very similar but also different in substantial ways.

Like obvious things like no war in Iraq or Afghanistan (at least not those wars), and less obvious things like how the attacks have reshaped liberal democracies like the US and Europe (for the worse imo), and how they empowered right wing politics in many countries (also bad imo).

True although I think most relationships are unstable and have drama particularly when young, which is why people can move through so many. Most people have multiple relationships in their lives until they find someone that works (or keep going). That's seen as normal.

I think there is a bias when people look at poly relationships as they seem novel and if they fail it's easy to say it was because it was poly. But if a 2 partner relationship fails it's "normal" and we accept all the reasons like "I didntnlove them anymore" or "we grew apart" etc.

It sounds like the person you were with would have been better off in an open relationship with someone.rather than labelling it as polyamory or want to pursue polyamory?

I've not been in a ployamerous relationship myself but I'd imagine the hardest part is the time and effort needed to maintain your relationship with each partner?

I could see 2 partners being doable but hard work, but once you go beyond that, then it must get very difficult? Especially if you don't all live together as juggling full time work around making the time and space to maintain very close personal relationships must be very hard.

And my mind boggles when you get to pplyamorpus "networks" where 2 partners may have relationships with other people rather than a shared 3rd partner. I think it would take a lot of honesty and maturity to make that work long term. I don't think I'd be capable of that.