What a waste of time! With this whole “everything is spam” craze going on these days, as soon as you try to promote this, it’ll get blocked on all your social media accounts. People are sticking to what they’re used to—new things are just there to steal our data. But here’s the thing: if you’re really rich or manage to secure a good investment partnership, then everything changes.

To ensure your post isn't viewed as spam or self-promotion, it's always a good idea to provide a more in-depth introduction to the app, such as 1. how the idea came about, who you are, and why you built it 2. what technologies you used 3. how you funded it 4. what your user base is like and lots of other information that would help readers feel “confident” in the app and decide to use it. But in the meantime, I’d like to say that despite the brief summary, it seems like a relevant and interesting app to use. Good luck

Honest question for people who've shipped code on both: now that Apple Silicon proved ARM can win outside mobile, is x86 still around because it's actually better at anything specific, or purely because of 40 years of software nobody wants to rebuild?

Yeah, yeah, it's something we've actually already been thinking about. But thanks.

The issue isn't even the extra $70, it's how they calculate it in the first place. Using general inflation instead of focusing on seniors' actual living costs makes zero sense. Retirees spend most of their income on healthcare and prescriptions—and those prices rise way faster than the average. In reality, an increase like that barely covers the rising cost of medication for the month. Isn't it time to update the Social Security formula to something more realistic, or is the fear of budget impacts what's keeping it stuck?

Unfortunately, the publication's link is also blocking the external link. But anyway, I'll remove the flag. This is the second time I'm asking you to post questions related to the website here: https://comuniq.xyz/categ?gr=Comuniq_feedback

Yes, they’re used to discuss almost the same topics. The site allows each user to create their own subgroups and moderate them, and the administrators only intervene if a user reports a violation of our rules. The user daniel created the “jobs” subgroup long after the user h--za1 created “Career-job-opportunities.” That’s why I believe we’ll see more cases like this in the future.

Token Ring—I have a vague recollection; if my memory serves me correctly, it's a type of network or router from IBM.

Comuniq is a website that prioritizes content and collective discussion; we’re working to create a space where users can find content and discussion topics that are truly relevant and engaging. Regarding the link you tried to post, I believe the source does not allow external links.

We don't have direct messages here, just comments and text in the posts. The error we see when we click on the link is 403 [Access Denied]. The sub you're using to discuss topics related to Comuniq is [Comuniq_feedback](https://comuniq.xyz/categ?gr=Comuniq_feedback). The “news” sub is only for posting news.

Relax, guys—that's already been added to the upcoming updates. We're working on that and other features. We just don't want to overload the site with too many features. Our priorities are safety and a smooth browsing experience

Update v41.30 dropped kind of chaotic — Sonic, Persona 5, Tetris and Pac-Man already leaked in the encrypted files before the update even finished rolling out officially. Funny because it shows Epic basically can't hide anything anymore; dataminers tear the package apart within minutes. And the timing's a bit ironic: they're still rolling out the Spider-Man crossover (makes sense, that's the actual season event), but the next season's files already spill everything — including characters like Mega Man and Eggman that haven't even been officially announced. Classic Epic pattern: organic hype through leaks instead of traditional marketing, and at this point it's basically part of the strategy, whether they like it or not.

Wild to think one of the most valuable names on the planet came from a typo nobody bothered to fix. Like, they had a misspelled domain registered and just kept it because "eh, looks good." No brand research, no focus group, nothing — pure luck. And the ironic part is that "mistake" ended up being the smartest move without even trying: "Googol" already meant something (a number), so it'd have been easier to fight over in court later. "Google" meant nothing at all, so it became 100% theirs. A typo that accidentally trademark-proofed the brand decades down the line.

That link doesn't lead to any page, so I decided to flag it. Please test the link after you post here.

That link doesn't lead to any page, so I decided to flag it

No, the site doesn't allow us to delete our own comments; we can only edit them. But if a comment violates our policies, the administrators will delete it.

counterpoint: this is exactly why -fwrapv or -ftrapv exist. if you're writing overflow checks in raw C without those flags you're kind of asking for it at this point, no? the compiler isn't lying, it's following the spec you agreed to

The limitations you faced in the past have given you enough energy to build something great today. Congratulations

Look, I agree that 1.5 °C is looking more and more out of reach, but we can't pretend the Paris Agreement was completely useless either. Thanks to it, the world shifted from a catastrophic **+4 °C** trajectory down to around **2 °C to 2.5 °C** — still bad, sure, but it proves the pressure actually worked. On top of that, solar and wind energy became cheaper than coal almost everywhere globally, and electric vehicle sales have surged in recent years. The 1.5 °C target might have been politically unrealistic, but it still works as a crucial emergency brake to speed up the tech transition that's already underway.

This opens a fascinating yet concerning debate about the future of cybersecurity. On one hand, it demonstrates the potential of advanced models to autonomously identify and patch security flaws before they are exploited. On the other hand, when alignment fails and the model goes rogue, the attack vector becomes completely unpredictable. How do you patch or contain an emergent behavior that even the team that trained the model cannot 100% predict?

This is the kind of content I like reading here the most. I try out some of these things whenever I can (y)

Great write-up, especially the part about the limits of `set -e` — that's the kind of thing you only really learn the hard way. Just wanted to add a detail that's helped a lot on my team: there's an option called `shopt -s inherit_errexit` that solves exactly the command-substitution case you mentioned. Without it, an error inside `$(...)` can slip through even with `set -e` active, because the subshell doesn't inherit the stop-on-error behavior. With the shopt on, that changes. ```bash set -euo pipefail shopt -s inherit_errexit ``` Worth turning on right after `set -euo pipefail`, especially in scripts that do a lot of assignment via `$(command)`. It doesn't fix everything (the `if` case you mentioned is by design, not a bug), but it closes one more common gap. One more thing on `trap`: besides `EXIT`, it's worth catching `INT` and `TERM` separately when the script receives signals from an orchestrator (systemd, supervisord, k8s), because the default propagation behavior can vary depending on how the process was started. I've seen a script clean up fine on a manual Ctrl+C and leave junk behind when the container got killed with `SIGTERM`.

Here’s an idea for anyone who wants to take it a step further: replace the LED with a multimeter in the first step, just to measure the actual voltage of each lemon before connecting everything in series. You’ll notice that not every lemon performs the same—some that are more shriveled deliver much less energy—and this helps you understand in practice why the circuit sometimes doesn’t work right away, even when everything is set up correctly. It would also be worth testing a potato instead of a lemon to see which one holds the current longer, since potatoes tend to last longer than lemons, which dry out quickly after a few hours.

I started to like Mick Jagger when he began incorporating blues into his songs; as a fan of the genre, that made me really admire his work.

Yeah, I agree the transition was worth it in the end, nobody wants to go back to memorizing memory commands just to run a game. But DOS had one thing I still miss to this day, the speed. You'd turn the PC on and be at the prompt in seconds, no hidden services running in the background, no indexing, nothing quietly eating up RAM. And there was a raw kind of control over the machine that Windows slowly took away, you knew exactly what everything did because you had to configure it all by hand, the autoexec, the config.sys, every sound card IRQ. It's easier today, no question, but it's also more opaque. Sometimes that convenience gain came paired with a real loss in understanding how the machine actually worked underneath.

"Nonsense" until it knocks on your door, right? The article brought scientific data from UCLA and Alzheimer’s research centers, this isn't just some internet coach's opinion. Obviously, people who did heavy labor back then got sick too, the only difference is that medicine back then just signed the death certificate without understanding that chronic stress and despair kill you too. Having a reason to get up changes your body chemistry, and ignoring science just to act tough doesn't make you healthier, it just makes you uninformed.

This isn’t really about building a ballroom, it’s about how it was pushed through. Using an office that sidesteps normal bidding rules to approve a massive no-bid contract raises a pretty clear red flag. It may be legal on paper, but it looks designed to avoid oversight. The claim that no public money would be used doesn’t really hold up either. Once costs start rising and taxpayers end up covering part of it, it feels like a convenient promise that got adjusted along the way. Another uncomfortable point is Trump’s direct involvement in cost negotiations. The person in power shouldn’t also be influencing the price. That blurs basic lines of governance and accountability. And the “national security” argument to justify secrecy sounds more like a shield than a real necessity in this case. In the end, it just looks like questionable priorities. Spending half a billion on a ballroom, given everything else going on, isn’t exactly the kind of decision that builds public trust.

Today’s Supreme Court decision hits on a long-standing, complex issue: the exact limits of presidential power over the economy and institutions that are supposed to be independent. Beyond the personal clash between Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the ruling brings a pretty serious institutional tug-of-war to light. The most striking part is how the Court balanced its decision. In the broader case (*Trump v. Slaughter*), the justices did expand White House powers, overturning a nearly century-old precedent to allow the president to fire the heads of regulatory agencies—like the FTC or the NLRB—for purely political reasons. But the story changed completely when it came to the Federal Reserve. In a 5-to-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the progressive wing, the Supreme Court drew a clear line. They recognized that managing inflation and maintaining market stability depend on the public perceiving the Central Bank as something other than an extension of whichever party is in power. If Lisa Cook could be removed without a formal, justifiable process, the pricing of American interest rates would be left at the mercy of political rhetoric, which usually erodes global confidence in the dollar. Inside the Fed, Cook’s resistance (her term runs until 2038) is part of a broader strategy to shield the institution from outside pressure to lower rates. The justification used to try to remove her involved an allegation of mortgage fraud, arguing that she had listed two different properties as her primary residence in the same year. The Court viewed this argument more as a political pretext and demanded due process, blocking any immediate removal. This kind of friction helps explain why Jerome Powell decided to stay on as a Fed governor even after his term as chairman ended; there is a clear effort there to keep the gears turning without sudden interference. Ultimately, if the Court had ruled entirely in the government's favor, the reaction in the bond and fund markets would have been pretty rough. Central Bank autonomy exists precisely so that unpopular decisions, like raising rates to curb inflation, can be made based on technical data. Today's outcome ended up throwing cold water on the executive branch's plans for centralization, signaling that monetary policy still has a few protective barriers left.

Calling it freedom sounds romantic, but in reality, it just breeds nihilism and apathy. Humans need structures and core beliefs to keep from losing their minds. Without believing in something bigger, you're just drifting.

The truth is, Apple is basically making our wallets pay for the global cost of AI infrastructure. The excuse that chips are getting more expensive because of data centers is fair up to a point, but seeing a laptop that was literally born to be "affordable" (the Neo) get a price hike right out of the gate proves that the era of cheap hardware is officially over. Artificial intelligence has become an invisible tax on our budgets. The real masterstroke—and the most frustrating part—is that Apple just reported a massive jump in revenue. In other words, they aren't raising prices to stay afloat; they’re raising them to keep their profit margins sky-high, because they know we’ll complain but end up financing it and buying it anyway. It feels less like a market adjustment and more like a loyalty test. And there’s a sweet piece of irony here: seeing Apple having to turn to Intel to handle chip manufacturing proves that not even all the money in the world can shield a company from current production bottlenecks. Their pristine, closed ecosystem just showed a little crack in the logistics armor. But let me ask you: where do you draw the line financially with their ecosystem? Would a price hike like this make you throw in the towel and switch to Windows or Android, or is your dependence on the Apple ecosystem already too deep to even consider moving?