Is the uptime any better?

Not really:

GitHub - Historically, GitHub reports uptime around 99.95% or higher, which translates to roughly 20–25 minutes of downtime per month. They have a large infrastructure and redundancy, so outages are rare but can happen during major incidents.

GitLab - GitLab also targets 99.95% uptime for its SaaS offering (GitLab.com). However, GitLab has had slightly more frequent service disruptions compared to GitHub in the past, especially during scaling events or major upgrades. For self-hosted GitLab instances, uptime depends heavily on your own infrastructure.

You can’t buy an M3 chip on its own

Why can’t someone else make one?

That’s very much the trick. Apple is actually exceptionally good at making CPUs. Look at these single-thread benchmarks: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/single-thread/ Similarly, if you look for the M4 in this list and then look for other ARM chips, you’ll have to look quite a ways down the list: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/multithread/mobile

It’s baffling to me that no one else (Qualcomm) has not been able to come close.

My guess is that CPU design is existential for Apple, and no one else cares enough to be dedicated enough to do what Apple has done.

This is exactly what happens when you invest billions and hire the best industry specialists for decades. M-series processors did not magically appear out of nowhere. Apple perfected them for years in iPhones, but people didn't have the ability to compare since Apple doesn't share their processors with anyone.

Because it’s a proprietary design? You’d have to reverse-engineer the whole chip, which is really hard to do on that process node

Giving them some credit, I think they're asking "why isn't there a close competitor" and that takes a much more involved answer.

It’s not realistically plausible to build bridges that won’t be brought down by that size of ship

This, 100%. I forget the specific numbers but regardless, the kinetic energy of a thing with that much mass, even moving at a very slow speed, is off the charts. Designing a bridge or protections for a bridge to survive that would at a minimum be cost prohibitive, if even possible with today’s materials and construction technologies.

Doesn't mean that nothing can be done. https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/nr20250320.as...

> The NTSB found that the Key Bridge, which collapsed after being struck by the containership Dali on March 26, 2024, was almost 30 times above the acceptable risk threshold for critical or essential bridges, according to guidance established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO.

> Over the last year, the NTSB identified 68 bridges that were designed before the AASHTO guidance was established — like the Key Bridge — that do not have a current vulnerability assessment. The recommendations are issued to bridge owners to calculate the annual frequency of collapse for their bridges using AASHTO’s Method II calculation.

Letters to the 30 bridge owners and their responses https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/sr-details/H-25-003

This is essentially the same thing that happened with Fukushima Daiichi. The organization running it failed to respond to new information.

Energy doesn't mean squat without a time component over which it's dissipated.

Stopping a car normally vs crashing a car. Skydiving with a parachute vs skydiving without a parachute.

For something like ship vs bridge you have to account for the crunch factor. USS Iowa going the same speed probably would've hit way harder despite having ~1/3 the tonnage.

Nah, we definitely can.

Plan the bridge so any ship big enough to hurt it grounds before it gets that close. Don't put pilings in the channel. It's just money. But it's a lot of money so sometimes it's better to just have shipping not suck.

Alternatively, the Chunnel will almost certainly never get hit with a ship.

> Plan the bridge so any ship big enough to hurt it grounds before it gets that close.

Have a look at the trajectory chart that I posted upthread and tell me how in this particular case you would have arranged that.

Yet another idea: if a ship's motors fail, have a ship ready that can push it in the right direction, in time. Probably need 2x the amount of horsepowers to make up for lost time, but it's not impossible.

Yes, that's called a tug and in plenty of harbors a vessel of this size would not be permitted to do close quarters maneuvers without the mandatory assistance of one, or in this case more likely two, tug boats of a certain minimum size relative to the size of the vessel.

CLA allows them to relicense your contributions under their own license - e.g. proprietary

A DCO would be the more friendly option.

I think the question is, what use is adding a CLA if the core functionality was under (A)GPL? Unless you go back and get all the OG contributors to sign over their rights, how can you relicense?

Yeah, exactly that's my point. The role of Arduino is like that of a Distro, they own the packet repository and the packet manager, and maintain a build-system and an IDE. They aren't the initial copyright holder to basically any library. The only thing they really own is the Arduino API, but this is an API not an implementation. The compiler is GCC, the board specific methods come from the hardware vendor, the C lib is newlib or comes also from the hardware vendor. The flasher software comes from a different company.

The libraries are written by random people, what Arduino does is adopt them after ~4-6 years of existing, slapping a "© Arduino LLC" on top and maybe fixing the packet manifest. The role of Arduino is a vendor and maintainer, they don't really are upstream for much things.

I don't really understand how what they try to achieve with these new "terms and conditions" is legally possible. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45978802) They could release new software with different licenses, but they would need to rewrite most of the ecosystem to do that. Neither MIT, nor LGPL, nor GPL nor AGPL contain any reference to "terms and conditions" of one of the copyright holders, which should be followed on top of the license.

You can’t sign the CLA if you are contributing code which you don’t have the right to relicense and isn’t appear under the CLA

Because Go silently gives you zero/null instead

Idiomatically, it gives you `err` and you do `if err != nil {return err}`. While in rust you mostly do `.unwrap` and panic.

It's not in the type system, but it's idiomatic

Get a key from a map and forget to check the error.

which mean an unexpected behavior could go unnoticed for a long time.

I'd prefer a loud crash over that.

Well look at the failure modes in the original article.

In the original PHP code, all worked, only it didn't properly check for bots.

The new Rust code did a loud crash and took off half of the internet.

They are aware. They don't want to pay the cost benefit tradeoff. Education won't help - this is a very heavily argued tradeoff in every large software company.

What hypervisior environments don't have this?

Move to the UK

Almost all cloud providers help here by having inter-region failures as well.

There are multiple AWS services which are "global" in the sense that they are entirely hosted out of AWS East 1

If trains are frequent enough, passengers do ignore schedules and just turn up. This is common on metro/subway/underground services.