If they are at our current tech level, to "see" Earth, then Earth would need to pass in front of the Sun from their point of view. That means they would need to be somewhere in the same pane as the Earth's orbit.
That's a transiting detection, there's other detection methods for exoplanets. Even a coarse grained survey with a ground based traditional telescope can find our solar system thanks to Jupiter's gravitational influence on the Sun. Doppler shift's in the Sun's spectra come from Jupiter tugging at it gravitationally. With interferometry and coronagraphy spectra of planets in our system can be gathered without needing to see our system edge-on. Then of course for aliens on the ecliptic there's transiting spectra of Earth.
The number of techniques for detecting exoplanets makes the Dark Forest concept silly. There's no hiding our solar system from alien observation. For dedicated observers (at the right distances) there's no hiding the existence of life, the Industrial Revolution, or above ground nuclear testing.
I have two Phenom II x6 - same generation as Athlon II. One desktop and one server.
The server ran non-stop for the first 10 years. Motherboard, a 790, failed and upgraded to 880G. One memory stick failed, replaced by lifetime warranty (Kingston) but the pair I received was slower CL9-10-9 vs. 9-9-9 for the failed one. After 10 years my router and a rk3288 SBC took most of it's jobs. I moved most of the hard drives (7x 2GB Seagate ST2000DL and 1 spare) into a DAS (SATA RAID enclosure) connected directly to the router where they are still running. None failed. The server bacame an offline backup. I started it weekly to sync. Last week I replaced it with a rk3588 ITX board - not because it failed, but because I wanted to explore / play with the new ARM CPU.
The desktop is also still working. I bought it second-hand a few years after the first. It was used at least 4h every evening and at least 10h every weekend. I'm still using it right now. One HDD failed - it was a 120GB PATA Seagate from ~2004 IIRC. No data loss, it was in RAID1. One GPU failed, a GTS 250, upgraded to GTX 970, still working. I'm going to keep using it for at least 5 more years, possibly more. Firefox no longer supports Win7 and I'm in the process of migrating to Linux. Total Commander (I'm a user since Win31) and file associations are holding me back. xdg-open is... absolutely horrible.
So it's hard to imagine biological life (chemical life?) without water or carbon, since they're such good solvents and building blocks, but we can at least imagine electronic or mechanical life which don't require them.
But what you can't get away from is heat dissipation.
Any life will use energy will generate heat will need to dissipate heat to maintain homeostasis.
Could you dissipate enough heat to exist at <10K, to maintain a technological civilization? Or would you be reduced to supercooling your entire environment?
Are there naturally occurring pools of liquid helium out there in the universe, maintained by natural processes, or are you left with vacuum relying on radiative cooling?
As I understand it, anyone with commit permissions can commit a PR, no matter what the community or even other devs think. So, no debate. Just commit and that's it. I don't even remember ever seeing a "block commit" setting or something that would prevent commiting a PR before discussion takes place and "block commit" is lifted.
Anyway, the discussion is pointless. Poettering approved. He probably would have commited the PR himself if he saw it in time.
Not just the price, the physical volumes. China's central bank has been discounting their bonds beyond what the market can support in order to get more free cash to buy up as much metal as possible as soon as possible, to the point that people are making millions this month just in the arbitrage from buying up everything in the London and Chicago exchanges to give to China.
It's worth noting, though, that that config option was only introduced in kernel version 6.8! Before then the option didn't exist and you could write with impunity to mounted devices (as root, obviously).
Did they increase profits and/or stock price or not? That's the only relevant question. Not what happend to Office.com or what you think about their products.
Also, you and me are not the customers. Govs and corporations are.
> Not what happend to Office.com or what you think about their products.
I don't understand this point. Are you suggesting that less people being happy with their product and thus less people buying it is not related to the valuation of the company and their stock?
> Also, you and me are not the customers. Govs and corporations are.
Huh?
I get you're trying to make a point about the bottom line, but that doesn't mean the bottom line is impervious to bad product decisions or that the people who are paying for their products are not in fact their customers.
Less people buying don't count much compared to the volumes bought by govs and corps.
Also, windows and office bought by govs and corps isn't the same edition as the one bought (usually) by home users, so they're not as dissatisfied by what they bought compared to home users. In fact, some of the features such as automatic unavoidable updates, are demanded by their usual clients.
Parent is pointing at the fact that the relationship between our perception of MS products and their financial success is highly inelastic. The bottom line isn't impervious to bad product decisions, but there can be a large number of user hostile decisions that PMs push through that still increase revenue on the whole even at the cost of user satisfaction, before they move past the optimal point in the payoff curve.
reply