You talk as if the US hasn't attempted to interfere in elections.
If online ads can be trivially used by big US tech companies to sway our elections using misinformation without it being observable to anyone or possible to refute (as would be the case for newspaper or TV ads) then why shouldn't it be monitored?
I don't think it's about the US in its entirety, nor ads, but Republicans and Elon Musk have become very skilled at exerting political influence in the US [1] and Europe [2] through social media in ways the public isn't really aware of:
I don't get the point about trivial proofs. Can't you just tell Lean to assume something is true and then get on with the rest of the interesting part?
You can but that ruins the fun and also misses the point. How do you know your "trivial" theorem is actually trivial? Proofs are mechanized to increase our trust into them, and it defeats the point if you have to still manually review a myriad of helper lemmas.
Yeah I guess it's more a question of methodology for me. You have several parts of a proof, and your intuition guides you that certain parts are more likely to be risky than others. Better to get those straight first since you've a higher chance of failure (potentially rendering much of the work you have already done pointless). Then you can come back to flesh out the hopefully more straightforward parts. This is as opposed to taking a purely bottom-up approach. At least that's how I often tackle a complex coding problem - I am no mathematician!
As someone who knows a bit about SSA, what do you make of LLVM's design decision not to use SSA for memory but only registers (i.e. it doesn't have memory SSA)? It has always confused me a bit as to why this was done.
Not trying to troll but it seems like there must be some way to make the job at least a little interesting (e.g. by rotating the tasks required, providing a little space for skill development)?
What kind of person sees a claim like "No, not all major breakthroughs were done at private companies. Like the internet, for example" and immediately feels the need to tell them private companies are doing stuff?
Are you not reading the reply chains before commenting? What motivates you to interject with information that is meaningless?
The only thing I can think of is that you've voted for the people who are currently slashing the funding and have to continuously try to convince yourself it's okay.
OP said "almost any major scientific breakthrough of the past century" was done at private companies. Which is objectively not true. They transmitted that message using technology that was created by the government. That's ironic.
Your reply
> Basically all of the internet is powered by software, standards, computers, networks and storage created by companies.
Is meaningless. It's someone jumping out of the woodwork to white knight the private sector. It's weird. It doesn't change what I said or what OP said.
It doesn't make it less ironic to say "all major things were done by private companies" using a technology that wasn't invented by a private company. It's irrelevant.
'Isolated' Chavez is a bit disingenuous here, they full on attempted to mount a coup against a democratically elected president. See this documentary 'the revolution will not be televised: https://youtu.be/GF4peYCrV6Y?si=EAKdElE6cq7js8aL'
There are job objects which are similar to Linux cgroups, including the ability to set a limit on the number of processes. But I'm not sure if that limit will be tripped in this case or not because the child processes have exited, whereas the job object parameter is specifically called LIMIT_ACTIVE_PROCESS
OpenProcess retrieves a handle to an existing process rather than creating a process so it won't be governed by JOB_OBJECT_LIMIT_ACTIVE_PROCESS, the bug here is that it's leaking handles, not processes.
