This underestimates the will of governments and companies Europe and especially China to reduce their dependency on US-controlled technology.

ARM isn't US controlled, is it? British and also now Japanese since it's owned by SoftBank.

Meanwhile, wouldn't China be more heavily invested in Longsoon?

ARM is British (America’s closest ally) and proprietary. If you’re swapping, just eliminate the risk and cost entirely.

LoongArch is 32-bit instructions only. This means no MCUs due to poor code density. That forces them into RISCV anyway at which point, you might as well pour all your money and dev time into one ISA instead of two. RISCV has way more worldwide investment meaning LoongArch looks like a losing horse in the long term when it comes to software.

Quite the contrary, the fragmented ecosystem is holding RISC-V back.

There are currently 3 variants of LoongArch ISA. The reduced 32-bit version targets MCUs. And LoongArch64 ATX/MATX motherboards with UEFI support is readily available. This makes it far more easier to develop with LoongArch.

What evidence do you have that RISC-V is being held back by fragmentation?

Every upcoming general purpose RISC-V core I'm aware of is targeting RVA23. That's even less fragmentation than x86 has.

Meanwhile, I don't know of ANY third-party chip designs using LoongArch, so asserting no fragmentation seems to be misrepresenting the situation a bit.

That's good news. Hopefully there will be more affordable replacements for x86 PCs.

I hope our complacent companies get a shot of competition.

If i understand the intention of a zfs root combined with an a/b approach — it feels like this btrfs root and immutable gives you the same benefits but with better mainline support.

That actually sounds more interesting than the one Meta created previously.

But still not interesting.

I imagine they’ll be fused where moltbook agents become NPCs so that you’re no longer alone in VR but surrounded by a myriad of cognition fragments to feel less alone.

Or just use Zulip?

Selecting the wrong environment in your test setup by mistake?

I refuse to believe that someone on the security team intentionally tested random user scripts in production on purpose.

Once you get big enough… there comes a point where you need to run some code and learn what happens when 100 million people hitting it at once looks like. At that scale, “1 in a million class bugs/race conditions” literally happen every day. You can’t do that on every PR, so you ship it and prepare to roll back if anything even starts to look fishy. Maybe even just roll it out gradually.

At least, that’s how it worked at literally every big company I worked at so far. The only reason to hold it back is during testing/review. Once enough humans look at it, you release and watch metrics like a hawk.

And yeah, many features were released this way, often gated behind feature flags to control roll out. When I refactored our email system that sent over a billion notifications a month, it was nerve wracking. You can’t unsend an email and it would likely be hundreds of millions sent before we noticed a problem at scale.

Yes this is a common release practice.

However this is a different situation as we’re talking about running arbitrarily found third-party scripts. I can’t imagine that was ever intended to be done in production.

Fun story, when I worked at Facebook in the earlier days someone accidentally made a change that effectively set the release flags for every single feature to be live on production. That was a day… we had to completely wipe out memcached to stop the broken features and then the database was hammered to all hell.

I would say you can get to this point far below 100 million people, especially on web. Some people are truly special and have some kind of setup you just can't easily reproduce. But I agree, you do really have to be confident in your ability to control rollout / blast radius, monitor and revert if needed.

> I refuse to believe that someone on the security team intentionally tested random user scripts in production on purpose.

Do I have a bridge to sell you, oh boy

And despite their broadly similar performance, the RK3588s have significantly better power draw.

However I’m not sure of any of the rk3588 vendors that support both UEFI and have a full-size PCIe slot like the MS-R1 has.

RK3588 has many times better power consumption, but their performance is not at all similar.

8 Cortex-A720 vs. 4 Cortex-A76 means at least 3 times better performance for optimized programs.

Also for I/O throughput, this computer has far more fast PCIe lanes than RK3588, allowing many fast peripherals.

As does attempting to manipulate election officials to change the vote outcome. If not for one person rejecting this coercion the coup would have been successful.

There are some bash options like cdspell or dirspell that are likely what the blog author is referring to.

Either that or they were using zsh with autocorrect preinstalled or had somehow rigged up the thefuck to execute and run on any error somehow? Either way seems like a terrible default.

This analysis ignores the fact that the user experience has regressed from a previous version which didn’t have these issues.

So it’s not like some longstanding industry-wide UI issues they’ve ignored forever, it’s that Apple has introduced new tradeoffs or lowered their quality standards to the point that some users feel their experience has worsened.

> This would still rely on Visa/MasterCard allowing dual-branded credit cards for overseas transactions, which isn't a very common arrangement

We can and should make this practice illegal, along with several other anticompetitive policies in this space. Oh no they might hit us with tariffs in response?