The discussion in the post is on-going. Two days ago they posted that they will not support Pixel 11 unless Google adds MTE support in a future update. That may happen in an upcoming December update, but it is just a rumor.
The fact that another museum tried to avoid giving out scans because the museum felt it would impact their gift shop sales supports the parent's claim about the museum's motivations, not refutes it.
Did you read the quotes? They tried to avoid giving out scans by saying that they felt it would impact their gift shop sales. But we know that they were lying about this, because they had no gift shop sales to impact.
Note that subtree and subrepo have the same SHA-1/SHA-256 incompatibility issue that submodules do, so this will be just as much of a trainwreck for them as well.
Ugh, I didn't know that SHA-1 submodules wouldn't be supported in SHA-256 repos. That changes the transition from painless to a major dumpster fire. Having to maintain converted forks, and use different hashes from upstream is going to be a mess.
The only reason C++ projects depend upon submodules is because C++ is just as archaic as COBOL these days.
I used to be one of the more vocal defenders of C++ but honestly, if the reason you’re defending git submodules is because there’s no better option in C++; then you’ve basically already lost the argument.
Nearly every other language has found a better alternative. Even Go has, and that’s largely mocked for its prehistoric approach to modern programming language design.
> The best way to program GPUs is face up to the reality that they are not the same machine as the CPU, write your kernels in separate files, and launch them manually
No. CUDA allows you to write all the code in a single file, and uses a preprocessor to split it back out and pass it through separate compilers, one for host and one for device.
This true, but you can write the two separately if you want.
The disadvantages of writing them together are listed in the various parent posts. But some code authors really like the convenience of having the two in the same file.
This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google. In both cases the judges found Google in violation of antitrust law, but both handed down fairly mild remedies, despite the administration (prosecutor) pushing for much stronger changes. The judges were appointed by Clinton (Leonie Brinkema) and Obama (Amit Mehta).
> In both cases the judges found Google in violation of antitrust law
Exactly. They have been determined to be a monopoly, but have been allowed to continue to be a monopoly because not being a monopoly could damage their business.
Why wouldn't they do anything that they felt like doing if they had been assured immunity to any government intervention. Every company in the country, tech or not, heard this loud and clear. Thanks, Obama. Thanks, Clinton.
Perhaps not US cases, but those aren't the only antitrust cases against Google.
What about Trump's threats after Google was hit with a 2.95 billion Euro fine from the European Commission's antitrust investigation?
From last year: "EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Monday made an 11th-hour intervention to stop the European Commission from issuing a penalty against American tech giant Google for its search advertising practices, amid continued trade threats from U.S. President Donald Trump." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-google-antitrust-decision...
Or from https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/10/google-meta-big-tech-6-billi... "In February, Trump signed a memorandum stating the U.S. would consider tariffs to “combat digital service taxes (DSTs), fines, practices, and policies that foreign governments levy on American companies.”"
My point is that your claim 'This administration has done nothing to end or undermine the antitrust cases against Google.' is incorrect if you also include European antitrust cases.
Yes, the last 50 years of post-Borkianism has resulted in an entire judicial system having a very narrow and essentially useless definition of anti-trust, far different from its original goals. That's part of the broader neo-liberal movement which started around the time of Carter, gained strength with Reagan, continued with Clinton's "triangulation" and NAFTA, and is still with us.
Yes, the League of Women Voters warned us about what you term the "two private clubs" back in 1988 when they decided to stop hosting the United States presidential debates saying that following the demands of the two parties would "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter".
Yet you seem to think I'm somehow shocked that same aged corporate Democrats who supported Obama, and who now fight tooth and nail against the democratic socialist arm of their party, are somehow in actually in favor of effective antitrust enforcement?
Your rant makes it seem like you're just easily triggered by the least bit of correction.
> I want to see a third Trump term.
Ahh, you're one of those anti-Constitution people. I remember as a kid people calling out "four more years" in support of a 3rd Reagan term, as their hero worship made them forget the lesson of FDR and the Twenty-second Amendment.
Just like those people who forget the lesson of Guiteau about a consequence of whims and bribes as a way to run a government.
Here's a link in case it's needed (I suspect most people that assume all of their problems are because of the administration don't actually read links but maybe if it's from their court?)
I think the images in the article are mosaics created from multiple images and the dark blob in the center is where their was no imagery because Saturn's south pole is currently tilted somewhat away from us. It has a 30 year orbit, and you can see in the images we are able to see closer and closer to the south pole each of the three years images were taken. The rough edges are just an artifact of image processing, and where individual exposures cut off.
Not true. To the extent that it is fair use to digitize a work for various purposes, it is also fair use to keep the original. It is only if they wanted to resell the original that they would have to delete their digitized copy. The reason they are destroying them because removing the binding is the most efficient way to scan them, they have no use for the originals after they have been scanned, and don't want to spend money storing them.
[1] https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/41564-pixel-11-doesnt-yet-m...
reply