Because stupid people are easily lead to act against their own, and other's, interests.
The good news is that stupid is curable, the bad news is that it involves the person in question putting in some effort, that they may not have spare, and doing so against the command of those manipulating them.
The thing is, the US administration desperately needs other countries to be seen to be acting like this, so they can point and say "see, this is perfectly normal", rather than scrambling to avoid calling concentration camps concentration camps, or terrorists terrorists.
We know they want the Iranian people to rise up, overthrow their government, and welcome the US forces as glorious liberators, (IMHO the probabilities are maybe, possibly, no chance), so I wonder if they're trying to cause as much harm as possible so people will go "if we just overthrow our government, the US will stop hurting us". It would be psycopathic of the US to think so, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that makes it impossible.
Of course, now that they're using "AI" they get to blame that for any targeting "mishaps" that become a liability.
Your comment makes me feel unaccountably old, even though I'm fairly sure that's not a thing. Well, moderately sure. Somewhat sure. I'm not sure I could handle seeing the news twice!
Nearby is one thing, but "bed rotting" involves lying in bed staring at your phone, typically mindlessly consuming media of some sort, and not getting up or sleeping. The post is ambiguous though, so if you were deliberately musunderstanding, then I apologise for misunderstanding your misunderstanding!
Sure, that would be a little different, but unless you could make a convincing argument, backed up with a solid set of unit tests, at the least, as to why and how you were able to remove that much code whilst only adding a comparatively small amount, I'd still be inclined to reject it and ask for it to be broken down into smaller units.
Now, that explaination might be something along the lines of it being dead code that is not called from anywhere, or even that it was a patched version of an upstream library, and the patch is now included in that upstream, in which case, fair enough, good work, and thanks very much. As a rewrite or refactor though, it's too big to sensibly review and needs breaking down into separate features.
I'm assuming this is some sort of canary message to indicate that the code base has been compromised, the author can't talk about it, and everyone should immediately stop using the service. Surely no-one would be unwise enough to commit this otherwise?
Even ignoring the huge red LLM flag, a 25kLOC delta in a single PR should be cause for instant rejection as there's no way to fully understand or test it, let alone in 2-3 weeks.
I know the sort of beast you mean. Solid enough that you could drive a car over it, and can probably be serviced with just a hammer and a wrench. It was undoubtedly an excellent piece of kit, and I envy your old boss!
It seems like it would be a lot simpler to have a udev rule that triggers when the specific device is removed and runs the forced reboot. That way you don't have an extra daemon running, and you can trigger on other devices too, for instance, your mouse.
It'll depend on what OS you're using. On linux you'd probably want to use sha1sum to generate a list of checksums of the files in one directory, then use it to check the other durectories and it'll tell you if any files don't match.
Stick to places lime !upliftingnews@lemmy.world or news sites that are tailored to showing positive stories. You already know there are terrible things going on in the world, there's no need to constantly cudgel yourself with them.
Dedicated, single purpose, chip designs are always going to be faster and more efficient to run than general purpose ones. The question will be what the environmental, and financial costs will be of updating to a new model. With a general purpose design it's just a case of liading sone new code. With a model that's baked into the silicon you have to design and manufacture new chips, then install them.
I can see this being useful in certain niche usecases where requirements are not going to change, but it sounds rather limiting in the general case.
Because stupid people are easily lead to act against their own, and other's, interests.
The good news is that stupid is curable, the bad news is that it involves the person in question putting in some effort, that they may not have spare, and doing so against the command of those manipulating them.