And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn't exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn't, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).

I think it was a general "when you leave Canada" policy.

Sucks because you know they don't cost nearly that much to make but it is what it is. 😅

Огин 🔥

I guess Chromium isn't fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I'd think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.

Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don't like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.

Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.

And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I'm looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.

Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.

Any intuition on why we'd expect opening the same page on a newly implemented browser engine that implements all equivalent standards and functions will consume less resources?

In fiat economies financial capital isn't a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens' money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn't hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don't need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There's no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government's "printing press."

Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they're not as easily replaceable. That's why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they're knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they're people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn't ideal. If we assume the latter, then it's a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they're not essential for economic growth.

I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren't rookie so there's perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.

China saw the world's biggest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record exodus of 15,200 in 2024, dealing a further blow to its economy, a new report says.

It's interesting how through the neoliberal lens this looks like "a blow" to their economy. But from a Keynesian or MMT lens, China doesn't need high net worth individuals to drive the economy. Public investment can and has done this in China as well as many other parts of the world.

From another angle, letting high net worth individuals flee, could reduce apparent wealth inequality in China.

Happy Canada Day!

You can get the binary from the project's website. Still not suggesting to f around with it.

If you have root you could theoretically add Memtest86+ to the boot order. There's tools that allow adding boot entries in EFI. You could probably place a Memtest86+ binary in your EFI partition and register it with the EFI firmware. But I'm not suggesting to do it since you could make the machine unbootable and the problem might be on the storage path. I'm just thinking of should be possible.

Most machines I owned that had kernel panics had either an NVIDIA or an AMD GPU graphics adapter, along with bad memory.

FTFY

Even as far back as 2010 the corpo I worked for had an official travel protocol that dictated backing up Blackberries, factory resetting them, crossing the border, then restoring them from the cloud. That was for crossing any border.

Title says growth, article paragraph says contraction. Yeah technically contraction is negative growth. Still misleading.

While true, I'm discussing the significance of exposure. That is what amount you can get into your body from different sources and the appropriate attention they should receive. PFAS in PTFE are residues from shit manufacturing. Even when they're present, the amounts aren't large. Stain-resistant furniture and carpets on the other hand are literally laced with PFAS to achieve this. So are most water resistant jackets. Household upholstery sprays like Scotchgard had PFOS as their active ingredient. Not sure what PFAS they use today. I know of multiple people who read a few titles about PFAS, replaced their cookware and kept laying naked on their PFAS-laden couches until I alerted them to it.

E: Forgot about food packaging.

🪦

SOFTWARE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STABLE

Someone with a case of brain rot.

PFOA is a relatively larger compound, and smaller “short-chain” PFAS that industry now more commonly produces and claims are safer were absorbed at higher levels – up to nearly 60% of one short chain compound dose was absorbed by the skin.

“This is important because we see a shift in industry towards chemicals with shorter chain lengths because these are believed to be less toxic – however the trade-off might be that we absorb more of them, so we need to know more about the risks involved,” said study co-author Stuart Harrad.

Oh nice. Well at least shorter chain PFAS degrade faster, but that's a shit consolation prize.