Both? It's pretty well explained in the rest of the text (you don't even have to click a link)

It was up to the Commission, which has exclusive powers to set the bloc's commercial policy, to break the gridlock and ensure the duties go through.

The European Commission made the decision after the member countries failed to agree on how to proceed.

What error? It gave you a string of tokens that seemed likely according to its training data. That's all it does.

If you ask it what color is the sky, it will tell you it's blue not because it knows that's true, but because these words "fit together". Pretty much the only way to avoid this issue is to put some kind of filter in front of the LLM which will try to catch prompts that are known to produce unwanted results, and silently replace your prompt with something like "say: sorry, I don't know".

I'm being very reductive here, but that's the principle of how these things work - the LLMs are not capable of determining the truthfulness of their responses.

OK, cool. Just remember that the only entity who can sue in this situation is Microsoft (because when you contribute code to VS Code, you must sign a CLA that says you give Microsoft full perpetual rights to distribute your code under any license they wish - it is Microsoft who then "graciously" releases your code under a copy left license while also building their proprietary version of VS Code using it).

And Microsoft cannot use the code if it gets released under a copyleft license - that wouldn't allow them to build their proprietary build with it. So the only one who can do anything has less than zero (because it would improve only the FOSS forks, which are meant to be inferior) interest in making these guys publish the source code as proper FOSS.

No, they are just in violation of the original license. That doesn't mean they have to comply with it by properly open sourcing the project. Generally it's also OK to just delete everything.

There were plenty of cases where commercial software included open source stuff in a way that violated its license, and the accepted way to fix the license violation was for the software/hardware vendor to stop using the violated project going forward. Usually they don't even have to for example scrub old firmware downloads that improperly included FOSS bits.

This is the a model, it won't have optical zoom either way.

Even on my home server (a desktop with 64 gigs of ram) the ram check takes longer than the OS.

I was pretty sure I messed something up when I upgraded the RAM in my desktop from 16 to 64 gigs and it wouldn't output any signal for solid 10 seconds, lol. And the regular 5 second black screen on normal boots was still something I had to get used to coming from maybe a second with 16 GB

Your argument is to have 2 subtly incompatible abis and one day binaries magically break.

Whereas your argument seems to be to have a special C variant for 32bit Linux - there's no reason to have a special time64_t anywhere else.

No program with time32_t will ever work after 2038, so any compiled that way are broken from compilation.

Yeah, so what will breaking the ABI do? Break it a bit more?

If you really want to be clever, mangle the symbols for the functions that handle time so they encode time64 as appropriate

That's what MUSL libc does, and the result is two subtly incompatible ABIs - statically linked programs are fine, but if a dynamically linked library exports any function with time_t parameter or return value, it will use whatever size was configured at build time and it becomes a part of its ABI. So fixing this properly would require every library that wants to pass time_t values in its API to implement its own name mangling. That's not a reasonable request for a barely used platform (remember, this is just 32bit userland, 64bit was always unaffected).

Ah, the joys of requiring non-standard library calls for apps to function.

The problem is that this approach breaks the C standard library API, which is one of the few things that are actually pretty universal and expected to work on any platform. You don't want to force app developers to support your snowflake OS that doesn't support C.

The current way forward accepted by every other distro is to just recompile everything against the new 64-bit libraries. Unless the compiled software makes weird hardcoded assumptions about sizes of structs (hand-coded assembly might be one somewhat legitimate reason for that, but other distros have been migrating to 64-bit time_t for long enough that this should have been caught already), this fixes the problem entirely for software that can be recompiled.

That leaves just the proprietary software, for which you can either have a separate library path with 32-bit time_t dependencies, or use containers to effectively do the same.

Sneaky edit: why not add new 64-bit APIs to C? Because the C standard never said anything about how to represent time_t. If the chosen implementation is insufficient, it's purely on the platform to fix it. The C17 standard:

The range and precision of times representable in clock_t and time_t are implementation-defined.

No, it will fast charge to 80%, then restart charming just in time to hit 100% when your alarm goes off (or when it thinks you're going to wake up). There's no automatic slow charging other than thermal throttling.

I can't speak for these specific laptops, but unlike x86, ARM generally doesn't have a way for an OS to discover the available hardware, and most ARM platforms historically didn't do anything to help. There is a standard for UEFI on ARM where the UEFI is supposed to tell the OS about the hardware, but as far as I know this is only a thing on ARM servers and these laptops might not support it.

Without any way of probing for hardware or getting the information from UEFI, Linux has to somehow be compiled with all the info about the hardware built-in. And the build will be model-specific (there's a way to pass a file describing the hardware to Linux from the bootloader which enables a single kernel to be used on multiple models and have just a small part of the bootloader be model-specific, but somebody still needs to make that file and the manufacturers clearly don't intend to do that).

Does UEFI initialize all the cores? I know the OS always starts with only one core available, but I'm not sure if UEFI just disables the cores after it's done its thing, or if it doesn't touch them. Because if it stays on core 0 and never even brings the other ones up, then this issue with core 2 could let it boot this far just fine.