This is also equally true for black cats as the genetics works the same for them too.
However, it's more that "female cats can be tortoiseshell" and thus the ratios will get somewhere around a 2:1 ratio of male orange cats to female orange cats.
Assume that you've got 50% tortie females, 25% orange female, and 25% black female... and 50% orange male and 50% black male. You can run Montecarlo simulations on that but it will always be the case that orange (and black) cats are predominantly male because of the smaller number of options.
There's also the increased visibility of the "trouble puffs" on a male orange cat (compared to black male) and so conformation bias of "yep, that's an orange male cat."
11. Patents.
A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
This is a "some companies might not want to have to litigate that". Whether or not there would be a problem is an open question. Legal likely advised not touching GPL version 3 out of an abundance of caution.
Eben Moglen speaking at the GPLv3 launch, January 16th 2006
...
We recognise that for parties who have extensive portfolios that are extensively cross-licensed, what we are saying here for the first time creates questions concerning their cross-licenses in relation to their distribution.
We recognise also that to say that you must "act to shield" is not explicit enough. We recognise that this is a very hard problem and though we have worked long at it we have no unique solution to offer you, even as a beginning for conversation.
...
I am not a lawyer, but what I understand from that is, if Apple authorizes use of bash under GPLv3, and then Apple decides it has a patent on something and bash is infringing on that patent, Apple can't go sue their customers for patent infringement because they are using bash. I'm 99% sure that's the intent of the clause. Lawyers are famously pessimistic and so I can see why they wouldn't want to test that, but seriously, what. are. the. chances.
Like seriously, maybe Oracle comes and sues Apple for patent infringement, and Apples only defense is to counter sue Oracle for using bash on their Macbooks?? They lost that defense when they stopped distributing bash, why not just distribute it under GPLv3 anyway?
As I understand it, it's more difficult than that... though I'm not a lawyer.
Let's say {some company} and Apple have a cross patent licensing for some set of patents.
Apple releases some softer under GPLv3. {Some company} sues someone else for a patent in bash. Since Apple licenses that patent and distributes bash, Apple is now obligated ("must act to shield") the distribution of bash that includes that patent.
If you distribute a covered work knowingly relying on a patent license, you must act to shield downstream users against the possible patent infringement claims from which your license protects you.
That wording of "knowingly relying on a patient license" and "must act to shield downstream users" are things that lawyers don't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. Would it mean that Apple would be required to defend the company that its patent partner is suing? Not a spot that lawyers want to be in. Furthermore, if you distribute GPLv3 software, it may mean that doing the cross patent licensing is more perilous... again, not a situation that lawyers or large companies want to be in.
There's Apple's bash distribution. If this was the GPLv3 version of bash and apple distributed a version that {some company} decided was infringing, and {some company} sued you - "I got it from Apple. Apple Legal, help me."
That's a helpful explanation, thank you. As a consumer of free software, that sounds great! I agree that it sounds pretty messy for big companies and all their patent deals. Sucks to be them, I guess
> Unconventional postcards: A thin sheet of plywood with a Sharpie address label is a fun postcard. (it just costs a lot more than a normal postcard)
I've got a bunch of water color paper post cards from my days of random vacations and a large format camera. I recall that they also had a slightly more than post card rate postage on them (though not excessively so).
I used Polaroid type 59 film (peel apart) in the field and did a transfer right there. Take a picture in Yosemite? Pull it out, roller it on to the paper and drop it in the mail box. It was a one of a kind. The damage incurred while mailing (blunted corners, scuffs and such) was part of the nature of the art.
There were also families who were curious about the process and I'd sell them a sheet of film at cost for them to do what they wanted - be it have a photograph or go through the process of making a post card themselves. There was also the "this is what an old time camera looks like and how it works" that interested some of the younger children - the heavy black cloth and the upside down image.
The essence of it is that "PEF" is from the user's point of view - pain, effort (work around), frequency. "REV" is from the developer's point of view- risk, effort (fix), verifiability.
Something that has a low PEF score and high REV score would not be practical to fix while something that is high PEF and low REV is something that should be prioritized high.
> However, in an updated statement, the agency revealed it intends to maintain the database in a bid to prevent a lapse in CVE services.
> “The CVE Program is invaluable to the cyber community and a priority of CISA,” a spokesperson said.
> “Last night, CISA executed the option period on the contract to ensure there will be no lapse in critical CVE services. We appreciate our partners’ and stakeholders’ patience.”
> "The CVE Program is invaluable to cyber community and a priority of CISA," the U.S. cybersecurity agency told BleepingComputer. "Last night, CISA executed the option period on the contract to ensure there will be no lapse in critical CVE services. We appreciate our partners' and stakeholders' patience."
> WASHINGTON, April 16 (Reuters) - U.S. officials have said at the last minute that they're extending support for a critical database of cyber weaknesses whose funding was due to run out on Wednesday.
> The planned lapse in payments for the MITRE Corp's Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures database spread alarm across the cybersecurity community. The database, which acts as a kind of catalog for cyber weaknesses, plays a key role in enabling IT administrators to quickly flag and triage the myriad different bugs and hacks discovered daily.
My {conspiracy | belief | suspicion} is that this was something that as part of the DoD they saw "Mitre Corporation" and that organization's relationship with MIT and were pulling funding for anything "elite liberal academia" (even distantly related) combined with the "we're pulling back from anything cybersecurity" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43228029 ). (edit) I've run out of invocations of Hanlon's Razor and it needs a long rest before its recharged. (/edit)
I don't believe it was a mistake - they wanted to pull its funding (and still intend to do). Note the wording of the statement:
> Last night, CISA executed the option period on the contract to ensure there will be no lapse in critical CVE services.
We are now in the option period.
At some point in the future, that option period will expire.
The option is common (its particulars of the award is at https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_70RCSJ24FR0000019... ). The fact that the option needed to be done rather than DHS continuing to support CVE and related programs is an abandonment of the responsibilities of the organization to try to keep computer systems secure.
A binding operational directive is a compulsory direction to federal, executive branch, departments and agencies for purposes of safeguarding federal information and information systems.
Section 3553(b)(2) of title 44, U.S. Code, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to develop and oversee the implementation of binding operational directives.
Federal agencies are required to comply with DHS-developed directives.
...
Remediate each vulnerability according to the timelines set forth in the CISA-managed vulnerability catalog. The catalog will list exploited vulnerabilities that carry significant risk to the federal enterprise with the requirement to remediate within 6 months for vulnerabilities with a Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) ID assigned prior to 2021 and within two weeks for all other vulnerabilities. These default timelines may be adjusted in the case of grave risk to the Federal Enterprise.
If there's no catalog that the government is maintaining for "these things need to be fixed to run on federal systems" ... then how do you ensure that the federal computers are secure?
I would feel a lot better about my skills knowing that bigballs also had difficulty figuring out what the correct syntax for this particular engine's version of \w and how many layers of backslash escapes are needed.
Plant closings involving 50 or more employees during a 30-day period.
California law has:
Plant closure affecting any amount of employees. Layoff of 50 or more employees within a 30-day period regardless of % of workforce. Relocation of at least 100 miles affecting any amount of employees. Relocation of a call center to a foreign country regardless of the percentage of workforce affected.
The self-effacing phrase “TDM TLA” (Too Damn Many...) is often used to bemoan the plethora of TLAs in use. In 1989, a random of the journalistic persuasion asked hacker Paul Boutin “What do you think will be the biggest problem in computing in the 90s?” Paul's straight-faced response: “There are only 17,000 three-letter acronyms.” (To be exact, there are 26^3 = 17,576.) There is probably some karmic justice in the fact that Paul Boutin subsequently became a journalist.
There's likely a good bit of analysis that could be done on TLAs. Consider TLA itself is {Adjective : Count} {Noun} {Noun}. Meanwhile, DUI is {Gerund} {Preposition} {Noun} with the stop word 'the' removed.
It might be interesting to take a sample of TLAs used and look what words can be used in those spots. If the third position is 90% likely to be a noun, that could change the distribution... guessing not in a significant way itself but it could be interesting to see.
In a computer lab I hung out in back in college...
We used rcp to keep passwords in sync. Add the account on the main machine, rcp the password file to the other machine. sudo rcp /etc/password other:/etc/passwd was muscle memory.
One day, someone was getting added to the groups file to be able to work in the server web project. sudo rcp /etc/group other:/etc/passwd
Ooops. Couldn't log in to fix it.
"Is anyone logged into the other machine?" (someone said yes). "Type while 1 sync" ... (ok) ... And we flipped the power switch and brought it up in single user mode (since the password file was invalid). Next, need to establish a minimal /etc/passwd ... emacs /etc/passwd (nope) vi /etc/passwd (nope - invalid terminal 300h not in termcap). "Uhm... cat > /etc/passwd ?" (possible, but a PITA when there is a typo in transcription)
I was a wizard on a lpmud. "I know ed".
And we got a minimal password file restored while reading the hashed values over (no way where we going to have root::0:0:... as the file even for a second) and then rcp'ed the proper /etc/passwd and /etc/group file over to the other machine.
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/us/elon-musk-town-starbas...
reply