Only if it's a swap file on a filesystem on that LVM partition, and even then if the filesystem is otherwise empty then there's no other data to accidentally overwrite, you might just trash the filesystem structure.
Then, if I'm understanding this correctly, the default setup in Ubuntu (at least in Ubuntu 20.04, which I happen to have installed on a couple of laptops recently), which has been mentioned both in this discussion and in the lwn.net article discussion, should be safe from the bug, since that setup, if you enable full-disk encryption, sets up two LVM partitions, one for root (called "vgubuntu-root") and one for swap (called "vgubuntu-swap"). They show up as separate LVM partitions in fdisk. The swap appears to me to just directly use the "vgubuntu-swap" partition.
I'd venture that most people who are compiling their own -rc1 kernel are not running Ubuntu, and most of those that are probably chose the swap partition option when installing it.
It really has nothing to do with safety at all; they're also cancelling Airbus orders and sticking with their existing 737NG aircraft. The 737 MAX orders would be being cancelled even if they were another type.
as far as the general public is concerned, "if its boeing I'm not going" is a viable message. There is almost no downside to them dropping the max, given they had to save money.
(I know that the 737NG are boeing. the point is, given a choice of which craft to drop, the one with tainted PR was the obvious choice)
Unless they can sell on the craft they own, or can offload lease structures they are locked into, There is sunk cost. They'd have to wipe out a huge amount of (possibly paper) money to walk off the 737NG fleet. I believe the Max purchase was fed from growth, as well as replacement, but in shrinkage, It would be untenable to acquire a paper loss, and have to spend real money. Yes, the operating cost is lower, and its a nicer plane. But, it also has certification issues, and will now demand (probably) flight crew training and re-certification when previously had not existed. So its TCO cost has risen.
It's been pointed out they've cancelled Airbus purchases too. This also strongly suggests what I thought about PR value is irrelevant: its not about marketing, its about real money. They may well want the Max. they can't afford it.
Are there any american carriers, who have not gone through bankruptcy restructuring in the last 10 years? I thought some of them basically traded in the state semi-permanently.
Southwest, Spirit, Alaska, and JetBlue (and probably others, but I got tired of looking) all have _never_ gone through bankruptcy-- Southwest had even managed to turn a profit for 47 consecutive years before COVID came along last year and screwed that streak up.
Many of the other big, "traditional" national carriers (including American, Delta, and United) have been through Chapter 11 once. That's not really "trading in the state semi-permanently", though; none of the surviving big-name carriers have been through Chapter 11 more than once, and all are currently out of it.
Interesting. Thank you. in Asia, LCC are a mixed bag and many tank. I had assumed (wrongly) this was also true in the US, and beleived the C11 story. I was wrong: there are profitable LCC in the US and not all of the 2nd tiers are LCC in any case.
Generally speaking the "connecting it up" between c/wasm + js or C + java/kotlin on android can be completely automated with codegen. It's really not tedious at all.
First and foremost, host the hosted script that you let users use on a different domain - especially if you're letting random people upload random files to your primary domain!
Yes this is 100% correct and I was thinking the same. The homepage, test storage and external script cannot share the domain. I have already started making these changes.
They may be in negotiations with some patent holder or similar, and just preparing for the possibility that they have to. Adding the strings is a few steps removed from actually removing Rosetta, so the title is misleading.
“If I pull this trigger—” ... let’s not play a semantic game. The simple truth is that a portion (likely a very small portion) of the market for these devices will view this as too much additional risk. In addition to the numerous other than normal first generation new hardware risks, Apple’s ongoing public issues with software quality, concerns about longer term control over their hardware/computing devices... and many other risks both perceived and actual... these potential customers have decided that for their individual concerns the math didn’t add up. This is a concern, albeit a minor one at present because as you correctly said it’s just the strings... but for some that’s enough.
I am generally in support of nuclear technology but statements like "Less than 20 people have died in Nuclear related accidents in the history of this technologies use" don't help the cause. That's just flat-out false, and you indicate in the following paragraph that you know that.
Leaving out the two most significant accidents in the history of the technology shouldn't be the default...
Literally the previous sentence I was talking about the danger in the US of fossil fuels, then I wrote about the danger of nuclear and then move on to worldwide.
Nothing I wrote was false at all. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to misread my argument to paint me as disingenuous.
Maybe it’s my non-US viewpoint but I didn’t read it that way at all. The fact that you qualified the previous sentence with “in the US” made the next sentence seem intentionally broad.
I also don't understand why the number of people that have died in nuclear accidents only in the US is a remotely useful metric in the context of the discussion.
Why would I start talking about coal deaths in the US, then immediately broaden it to worldwide nuclear deaths. Lie about Nuclear deaths by only counting US, then immediately after lying bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove I lied or something??
You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people
> You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people
Sigh. I made it clear in the first comment that I don't disagree with you. I would love to see wider adoption of nuclear power. The sentence that you wrote was inaccurate, and I felt that more accurate wording would improve the quality of the debate. I don't see the point in engaging any further on this.
I would expect it to actually increase the market rate because setting aside some amount of the supply at below market rate / subsidized means that there is a smaller remaining supply than if they hadn’t done that.
Market rate is the price where supply and demand are equal. If you set price below market rate, the demand will be higher than the supply. So if you create enough below market rate housing that there is no longer a shortage, then it must mean that the supply and demand are equal at that price, which means that it is no longer below market rate.
