MajorasMaskForever

Exactly

There were some strong criticisms of NCLB when it was first created that correctly predicted this would happen.

Another unintended consequence was the death of elective classes in all but the most affluent schools. Schools strapped for cash needed the extra money offered by NCLB so they diverted what little resources they had into classes that were measured through standardized testing. Shop, agriculture, civics, home economics, classes that actually helped students live a good life were axed in favor of more math and science since students generally performed lower in those subjects and were dragging scores, thereby funding, down

I'm not an educator, but most of my family is and no child left behind is an interest of my sister who is a teacher, and it goes like this:

School funding is heavily driven by tax revenue of the surrounding areas, so more affluent districts could afford higher pay, more expensive materials, etc than a less wealthy district. This meant the quality of education varied wildly across state to state, city to city, district to district. The subjects taught and the full scope of each subject being taught was different as well. So you'd end up with entire groups of children not having been taught things needed to be a productive member of society

No Child Left Behind sought to correct this.

The idea was to create a standardized set of knowledge expectations across the US and used additional funding as a corrective function to underperforming schools. If a school was doing well by their students they got more money, if a school was not providing as good of an education, they'd lose money. Doing "well" was primarily measured by checking the students' knowledge of the listed standard topics.

In practice what happened was standardized test scores got mathematically tied school funding. Average grades, number of students graduated, a few other metrics also got tied mathematically to funding.

School districts could try their best, provide the best quality education possible, and then hope and pray that the students performed well... Or they could cook the books and change internal standards to ensure that by all the measured metrics they got the most funding they could

Sounds like someone wanted to avoid needing to recompile for the target, but was either hardware constrained on what they wanted to do or as they thought that implementing their own language was going to be easy, learned it's very much so not, and then took some stupid shortcuts

I totally haven't done that myself, nope....

That is the gamble with useful idiots though, sometimes they can surprise you.

I think the Republican party is getting increasingly concerned that what little control and manipulation they had on him is fading fast.

I also think they need to have someone who thinks they're in charge so they can project bravado and power to the undereducated base that is MAGA. No "strongman", no MAGA

Power draw from the grid fluctuates greatly throughout the day, and across the year.

Conveniently power draw tends to be at its highest in the middle of the day when the sun is out and these panels can produce power to help meet the demand. Overnight the power draw is several times lower than peak, so the other power sources Minnesota has (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, wind) can continue to keep the grid energized while the sun is down.

When solar is just part of a broader power source pool, grid level storage isn't needed.

A useful idiot still needs to be able to do things for you, win over the right people, set the tone of the room, be the distraction. If the useful idiot goes off of the rails, stops being taken seriously at all, you're left with just an idiot. They're worried they lost the useful part

Auto Code formatting, not a big deal? What kind of hellish demon are you? What eldritch horror created you?

One of the big advantages to modern operating systems like Windows (XBox) and Linux (PlayStation, though technically it's BSD but we're gonna ignore that) is it separates the program from the hardware enough that so long as both machines run the same OS, the software drivers for the hardware have the same interface, they can run the same programs*. This is helped by the hardware running the same kind of CPUs and GPUs so the only piece of variability left is performance.

In the olden days, where companies would make specialized silicon chips for custom graphics processing, the OS, drivers, and driver interfaces were so specific to the hardware you had to use something like a devkit

*I'm wildly over simplifying, there are some edge cases to this but it holds true for the most part

You probably can't find it because you're mixing mutually exclusive terminology.

A stack is a First-In Last-Out data structure. If your entry criteria is time, the oldest files will persist and the newer ones will get purged first.

If you want to remove oldest files first, you want a First In First Out queue.

Both of these will permanently delete the original file.

Caches are just a copy of real data, sitting somewhere that ideally has faster access times but smaller storage space. The real original file does not get modified. A cache will typically hold onto as much data as it can until it hits some cap, at which point a replacement algorithm is used to select which entry or entries to make space for the newly requested item. Very rarely will a cache delete entries on its own to minimize actively used space, but if they do they will likely just run the replacement algorithm without backfilling the space

Oof, I always wondered if there were more things of his that were inaccurate.

What I caught was the hexagon video and his claim about triangles (combined to make hexagon) being the best for building rockets. I worked in the launch side of aerospace at the time, and true Atlas V and Delta IV were built with triangles.... But only on their booster tanks. Their upper stages had a completely different design structure, as do Vulcan, Falcon 9, Starship, New Glenn, Electron, etc etc

Triangles were only used on Atlas V and Delta IV because CAD in the 90s didn't do rectangles very well. That's not a problem anymore, so triangles don't get used

Yeah, but it does take a lot of work to coerce them to do it.

GCC is honestly obnoxious, and you have to do a bunch of unintuitive things to get it. The compile stage needs the built-in RNG seeded, parent file paths stripped, you need to ensure that the date/time macros are not used anywhere, and you need to ensure that all command line flags are passed in the exact same order every time.

I just went through this with GCC16 on a new project.

Current defense worker here:

Was talking with a coworker recently about how ITAR/EAR rules are hilariously out of date. Basic IMUs coming from China these days are good enough that you can establish a reasonable dead reckoning nav to where those parts of the munitions list are just defunct. Shit I did that in college ten years ago with high power rockets and things have only gotten better.

The new proposed regulations over AI chips are also wildly misguided and demonstrate how Congress/Executive branch have no idea what the tech even is. The top of the line chips today are needed for LLMs, fast fixture acquisition and tracking can be done on a way less powerful piece of hardware that new regulations will fail to stop (that's even assuming that the bans would have worked in the first place, which they won't)