Quantum immortality is just an absurd quasi-religious pretense of physics that caters to those that fear death but feel embarrassed to participate in the traditional socially approved coping mechanisms.

I do not think death exists as a thing. We're shoving a lot of stuff into the concept. Pain, loss of information, of the one who dies. Fear of the unknown, what happens next. Death is a very volatile concept if you really try to pin it down. When you take all the layers off...you are left with nothing really.

But yes, the apparent loss of information seems to be true, for us at this technological level.

ha. 4th grade for me, though I'm more amused than salty about the affair. who's ever heard of 'recursion'? honestly.

tbh, sounds like a made-up term coined by someone who could go on and on

the first line of the article points out that python isn't run in the POSIX C handler. that just sets a flag for the interpreter to act on. the python issue is an unsafe re-entrant handling strategy in the interpreter.

And this is explained in more details in the first article of the series.

Too funny

>Migrant is actually the wrong word entirely, I think.

immigrant, im- (variant of in-) ; migrant into your country

emigrant, ex- ; migrant out of your country

both are still migrants. there is no specific cause for migration required to be an migrant.

you just need to move somewhere new to live.

You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!

In terms of common usage though, it's as I said, especially in North America.

I believe they were asking whether or not "ethnic" is the correct term.

"Foreign food" or "foreign restaurant" seems to be the norm where I live, but maybe I'm uncultured. "Ethnic" wouldn't offend anyone I don't think.

Could be. "Ethnic" sounds to my ear a lot less possibly offensive than "migrant" given the current climate.

>s/learn/be indoctrinated/

Yeah, this comment demonstrates my own perspective on it quite well, in that it's likely just another bald political attack by the current administration on education, wherein a bureaucrat will get to decide what does and does not constitute a worthwhile degree, and is allowed to become the gatekeeper of what universities may teach by selective topic by topic defunding.

Will they decide to ignore the salaries of students "not working in their field"? That could be used as an instant bludgeon against anything centered on history, philosophy, or other educational paths that do not generally have high paying careers associated with them, even if those graduating from them do generally earn more on average than those with only a high school diploma.

Twenty years ago something like half of those in tech didn't have a college degree of any kind. Plenty of businesses are run by folks that don't have college degrees. Crafting statistics through careful manipulation of who is counted for making the comparisons could be used to exclude almost any set of courses that isn't STEM, law or medicine.

For a single word response, perhaps.

But for anything else I wouldn't.

The entire chain will be affected from the different tokenization on down. Even if it lands in roughly the same semantic area, it doesn't mean it will land there with anything like the same syntactic selections. Anywhere there were multiple near-tokens could easily select a different route based on even minor fluctuations in the starting conditions. It's chaotic.

You're a parent. Be the bad guy if you feel it's right.

Wanting the government to levy a society-wide information tracking system because you don't want your child to be upset at you is incredibly selfish.

I mean, we already have corporations levying a society-wide information tracking system that they just sell the government information from, so there's that.

With this said, if the government doesn't ban cellphones/tablets at school all of your blocking kids at home from electronics is fucking useless.

My daughter pulled this crap as a teenager where we banned her from social media... so she got an old tablet from a friend and setup all new accounts. It was only months later that we caught her at it.

Kids are way more resourceful than you think.

Of course they pull that kind of crap. Teens are often plenty smart, just generally naive to consequences.

They'll do this kind of stuff even if we require spybotting the entire internet. Kids already lean on sketchy older siblings or friends or stolen/fake credentials to acquire booze illegally. Getting them to sign up for and verify online accounts would be next. Or paying/doing favors for random sketchy adults. Or buying them online, as the original article mentioned.

Anything more than the equivalent of "mark this device account as being PG/PG-13/Adult" isn't buying more security for kids, just more intrusion into the lives of everyone else, while pushing access into a black market that will create new dangers for the kids entering into it.

A device flag enabling an http header indicating a device account is "PG-13" could still allow a kid to sign up to non-adult sites online, but then have appropriate restrictions on usage etc applied to the accounts. Kids can access their friends, maybe the media cuts off during school hours, but they don't feel the need to escape the system, and are more likely to stay within it.

Requiring invasive overbearing authoritarian systems be put in place with the excuse of saving the children won't accomplish the stated goal, just the unstated one.

> Why is social media so different?

Because of what that ban entails that the others don't.

the only difference between a thread and a process on linux is how many structures they share. the function is identical.

Agreed, however not all UNIXes are like Linux.

it's not uncommon for runtimes to use always-zero bits from aligned pointers or bits above 48 (unused in most current 64bit CPUs) to store flags today. you don't need special 'bit-addressing' to do it. byte addressing works just fine.