Half grandfathered in from a period when UK was a commonwealth, and ANZAC were not technically independent.

ISO-3166-1 has a lot of “countries” that aren’t actually independent - but useful to have codes for because they are geographically distinct.

ccTLDs are based on the ISO two letter country codes - it’s deferring the responsibility for cleaning up the British mess to ISO

Nope. They already have .mu

Once the treaty is signed, the .io cctld will phase out over 5 years.

Unless ICANN get greedy and grant an exemption.

You can still adopt or go through surrogacy, so don’t think you’re completely out of the woods yet

Once upon a time, I accidentally created a folder named “~” in my home folder (the company provided scripting framework would inconsistently expand variables, so the folder had a ton of stuff inside it).

I ran “rm -rf ~” and only panicked when I started to wonder why it wasn’t taking too long.

Good news is that it only managed to get halfway through my local checkout of aosp before I stopped it. Bad news was that it nuked most of my dotfiles.

That guy? He was horrible at AA. Did something to the water cooler and now everyone is falling off the wagon

I mean, it is shit posting

I think we finally figure out how to not poop for three days

Those young machine spirits need their rest

That makes a lot of sense - I wonder if they also do the SIGSEGV trick like HotSpot to know when they need to JIT the next chunk of instructions

But does it run Doom? Using CMOV instructions only?

I thought FAT binaries don’t work like that - they included multiple instruction sets with a header pointing to the sections (68k, PPC, and x86)

Rosetta to the best of my understanding did something similar - but relied on some custom microcode support that isn’t rooted in ARM instructions. Do you have a link that explains a bit more in depth on how they did that?

From what I’ve understood of this - it’s transpiling the x86 code to ARM on the fly. I honestly would have thought it wasn’t possible but hearing that they’re doing it - it will be a monumental effort, but very feasible. The best part is that once they’ve gotten CRT and cdecl instructions working - actual application support won’t be far behind. The biggest challenge will likely be inserting memory barriers correctly - a spinlock implemented in x86 assembly is highly unlikely to work correctly without a lot of effort to recognize and transpile that specific structure as a whole.

Holy propaganda batman!

The list of articles on that website is…extremely focused on one subject only.

So you hope that Hamas and Hezbollah continue firing rockets at civilians?

Locks are only held during system calls. Process termination is handled on the system call boundary.

You’re projecting windows kernel insanity where it doesn’t belong.

What the duck Microsoft bullshit is this?

There is no concept of locked files in extfs, much less inside the kernel. Resource locks and unkillable processes is some windows bullshit that no sane operating system would touch with a ten foot pole.

Well? Do you have any grapes?

Well? Do you have any grapes?