wewbull

My thoughts are "Why do they need one?". It's not like UEFI stops you doing anything.

UBIOS's unique features over UEFI include increased support for chiplets and other heterogeneous computing use-cases, such as multi-CPU motherboards with mismatching CPUs, something UEFI struggles with or does not support. It will also better support non-x86 CPU architectures such as ARM, RISC-V, and LoongArch, the first major Chinese operating system.

[citation needed]

I would say this is about increasing the level of control of the platform, not about technological issues.

Edit: For example, here's the RISC-V UEFI specification.

Government ministers are bound by collective responsibility and so if Milliband states something definitively it is taken as government policy. All other members of government would be expected to say the same thing.

So the weasel words here are because it's not agreed government policy that they should leave X. I expect they haven't discussed it. If he's more definitive it would potentially expose a split in opinion within the government (Oh the horror!).

Understand the code words. His opinion is that they should leave. This is his way of making it a topic for discussion in the government.

Also China require local representatives in subsidiaries management in China, possibly even Chinese leadership. The Dutch are only playing from the same rulebook.

At that size it should be capable of solving significant problems, but there absolutely no mention of what it could be applied to.

Whilst building it is interesting and an achievement, it's greatly diminished if nobody does anything with it.

I'd just built my first PC and had no love for Win 3.1 which was rapidly becoming the default. I wanted to keep codíng having come from from Atari STs and had no desire to learn the windows APIs. An OS that came with C compilers by default was higher level than I was used to as I'd been doing 68000 assembler on the ST, but it was still low level enough.

IIt was also similar enough to the Sun IPCs and IPXs that I was using at university.

Safer than ChatGPT you say? Wow....

That isn't a high bar.

I'm with you. I think the markets are going to be demanding results very soon now. When they do...Nvidia, Meta, Google, X, Microsoft stock prices are all going to go into free-fall.

Datacentres powered by coal are bad. Cruise ships are worse.

Coal Vs Marine fuel. You've picked the kings of pollution.

Coal is worse for CO2. The free carbon it releases binds with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce more CO2 mass than the coal itself. It's crazy how much CO2 it generates.

Heavy fuel oil / bunker oil / marine fuel is cheap ass shit that contains masses of pollutants. So whilst it won't generate as much CO2, it will create a load of other stuff including Sulphur Dioxide. That creates acid rain.

Here's an idea. Let's do neither of them.

Which is what Textsecure was. The precursor to Signal. Signal did it too, but removed it because it confused stupid people.

Signal has never done that. Whilst the app might not be available in some regions they've been proud to talk about how people can use it to avoid government barriers.

I'm a little confused by some of the discussion. Surely the problems they're talking about with variations in the test system also apply to windows. You result can be affected by:

• Which windows updates have been applied
• Which version of the drivers have been installed
• What other software is on the system

Linux is the same, but they seem to be more concerned about it. Can someone explain?

They're Saxon