That’s really cool! Naively I would have thought that modes of mechanical vibration would have involved too many parts to be able to coherently store quantum information. It would not have occurred to me that the real trick to getting this technology to work is actually not in getting the mechanical resonator to act like a quantum object, but in making it anharmonic so that you can essentially separately address each of the modes.

The Software Publishers Association has finally won:

It is no longer possible to copy that floppy. :-(

Doesn’t language editions solve that problem? (I am not a Rust expert so please correct me if I am wrong.)

Curses, foiled again!

You make the excellent point that expressing enthusiasm for using Linux to solve problems is entirely inappropriate for an online Linux community.

This is the perfect opportunity for me to finally learn COBOL!

No more excuses!

Indeed, you make an excellent point that Advent of Code solutions need to be maintained for years to come.

When I see phrases like “re-thinking” and “another point of view”, I am led to believe that I will be reading about something relatively new. Instead, there not anything new here, and on top of that the person writing the article seems to barely understand the concepts involved. Finally, their English is so poor that the article is really hard to read.

All of their children will die; it is only a matter of when.

Put another way: every time a parent gives birth, they are bestowing the irrevocable gift of one day experiencing dying to their child.

Yeah, and it had more tangents then an infinitely differentiable curve.

But that might be seen as being in the spirit of C++

One might even say that this is another instance of the same template.

Betteridge’s law of headlines strikes again!

Hey now, you should be thanking your teachers for this incredibly valuable early life lesson on the difference between what the customer says that they want and what they actually need, and which of these two you are going to get paid more for!

Remember: the customer is always right!

/s

I read it somewhere in a book I was reading on Buddhism and the nature of the mind; if I am able to find it I will let you know!

Could someone point me to a more in-depth legal analysis of this bill? The text of it is here. It looks to me like it is mostly about replacing vague parts of the U.S. code with regards to patents with more explicit instructions, and one of these instructions even seems to give courts explicit permission to judge whether an invention is eligible for a patent rather than taking this power away:

IN GENERAL.—In an action brought for infringement under this title, the court, at any time, may determine whether an invention or discovery that is a subject of the action is eligible for a patent under this section, including on motion of a party when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Furthermore, one really nice thing that this bill does is that it makes it clear that if the invention or discovery solely involves a process or material occurring naturally with no modification–a human gene being explicitly called out–then it is explicitly ineligible for a patent.

To be clear, though, I am not a legal expert, which is why it would be great if someone would provide an in-depth analysis of exactly where the problem is rather than just saying that the bill is bad.

A Mortician’s Tale was a nice relatively short interactive experience about what it is like to work in that occupation and its ups and downs, and an opportunity to reflect a bit on the reality of death.

I think a simple “Thanks, everyone!” message posted sometime during the day at your convenience is sufficient; individual replies or replies to subsequent messages are not necessary.

It is amazing how much this kind of thing depends on conditioning; there is a culture I read about recently where if someone sees you drinking coffee then they would ask you how you were feeling because it is considered to be a gross drink that you would only have when you were sick; tea would be the beverage of choice at all other times.

Maybe, but I strongly suspect that there were enough other things going in Trump’s favor that if she’d broken with Biden on Gaza–which is not nearly as easy as you make it sound–then we would have still ended up in the same place, except that different people would now be blaming her for that decision.

(Just to be clear, I am not saying that her campaign was flawless, only that it is easy to second guess.)