I don't understand why the kernel needs to be linked to the distro. I use Gentoo and kernel upgrades are orthogonal to my userspace because of Linus' "we don't break userspace" policy. I do not even need to recompile packages when I change my kernel.
If EAC signs a custom kernel I will just boot into that one when I want to play video games. Unlike dual-booting Windows it won't delete my Linux boot entries and I can use all my applications.
Exactly, this is exactly what I'm going to do on NixOS. Apparently Epic is greenlighting CachyOS, so I'll most likely just pull their bins.
> GP: EACv2 can't accept self-signed kernels and bootloaders
Also, from what I understand from the NixOS discussion[1] on this, it's using mok. That does put which keys are trusted in Epic's hands (which also isn't perfect, but is still vastly better than Microsoft). That article author seems to be poorly informed, or may be spreading FUD.
Banning the "limited use" category by default in the "General Security Profile" is interesting given it overrepresents indigenous scripts.
For example, Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics is the writing system of Inuktitut, the primary language of the Canadian territory of Nunavut spoken by 63.1% of the population. It seems like they're being disenfranchised by this proposal.
For now anyway. I think people are still figuring out social norms for this stuff, and at the end of the day I don't think people are going to just have carte blanche to deploy agents haphazardly and not be stuck with at least some kind of social bill when they break stuff or annoy people.
I went to Austin a few months ago and half the interchanges weren't on Google Maps because they were built so recently. In the week I was there I think they finished building a new one near my hotel.
I wonder how reliant self-driving cars are on unchanging road infrastructure.
> half the interchanges weren't on Google Maps because they were built so recently
Uh, bullshit? It takes more than a year to build a modern interchange. Plenty of time for Google to update its maps. Can you provide a couple example satellite photos of the interchanges that are not yet mapped by Google?
Here's the interchange near my hotel that's not on satellite but is on Google Maps. Unfortunately satellite coverage on Google Maps is older than Google Maps is, but you can see on streetview in April 2025 it mostly wasn't there and in May 2026 it mostly was. I think I visited a month or so after which is why it was so recent.
Google doesn't always update when the new ramp goes into effect and can sometimes lag by a few weeks or more from what I've personally experienced, living around places experiencing rapid redevelopment.
You are missing the point. The GP wrote "half". Utter bullshit. Sure, maybe one new on-ramp is missing... but half? And how many new interchanges is Austin building per year? I guess two at max.
> And how many new interchanges is Austin building per year? I guess two at max.
Sounds like someone who's never in their life driven in Austin.
It wouldn't surprise me to find it's nearly a half dozen per year, on a slow year. I only drive down there a few times a year and yet almost every time I go on my random route at least two stretches of road are just radically different from the last time I drove on it.
Sometimes it really feels like Texas' biggest industry is highway bridge/overpass construction.
If you've never experienced the rapid redevelopment of Texas exurbs and what not it's something of a marvel to behold, like watching a train wreck take place over months.
> Like did a bunch of teenagers sneak out at night and build a highway?
With how some of this urban design happens it almost feels to be the case at times.
A bit more real of an answer is: federalism. You're assuming the state DoT is entirely in charge of these projects. Lots of different government organizations are in charge of these things, and they don't always communicate well. Cities, counties, toll operators, and others can decide when these ramps are opened or closed. It's not just the state DoT that does these things. There's no single org that can authoritatively say "these are all the roads which are open, right now."
Now, I do agree with you, making such a data set complete and public should be some level of priority. There should be reporting standards involved in defined, standardized formats. These do not really exist, and making such a thing happen is a political question not a technical one.
The top comment discussing how price inelasticity means it is the drug users who are donating the money and deserve the moral credit made me appreciate my economics minor.
Thanks for reminding me of Kiva. I used to be big on it when I was younger. Just sent US$50 to a Liberian to fund her clothing business, hope it works out.
They still read every single message you send and train on them.
I’ve had them email me before because I was testing it as a filter for abusive messages and they detected some no-no and wrongthink in those test messages.
They run anti-abuse filters with ZDR but to my knowledge they don't have the specific prompts that triggered them. I have never received any emails from OpenRouter or otherwise.
I looked into ZDR, it's basically a vapid claim with little to no due diligence or auditing. I expect most providers to cave with only a minimal amount of legal pressure.
Gale-Shapley, used in this service, has the property that one side ("proposing" side) is guaranteed their most advantageous stable match while the other side is guaranteed their worst possible stable match.
I've never heard this discussed or mentioned as a drawback because it's Nobel Prize winning and "stable" is a shorthand for "fair". Even though there's many unique stable matches that each offer participants different utilities even if individual participants don't have incentives to change their pairing.
In practice, the more powerful party seems to be the proposing side, e.g. hospitals are the "proposing side" when using Gale-Shapeley to match w/ med school students and get their ideal students.
I wonder if anyone who works on dating apps knows if men or women are the preferred side? And is there any research on stable matching that ensures equity (or ideally arbitrary distribution of utility) between the two groups in their stable matches?
> I've never heard this discussed or mentioned as a drawback because it's Nobel Prize winning and "stable" is a shorthand for "fair".
You've never seen this discussed as a drawback? I've seen it mentioned quite a bit. For instance, it came up on the last big thread on this just the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49915825
Given how women initiate most divorces, it's probably best to set it up so they are the proposing side.
But this isn't raw Gale-Shapley-- the participants aren't ranking all hundreds/thousands of others. In particular, the preference matrix is based on identical mutual compatibility scores, so there's a unique stable solution (not multiple stable ones!), and there's no "side" that benefits, since the solution is identical no matter who does the "proposing".
If stats from dating websites are to be believed, all women tend to flock on all the same tiny percentage of men and ignore the rest. If women initiate, I’m afraid you will see only a few men getting any pairing. Men are likely to be less picky as we see in the wild.
> If stats from dating websites are to be believed, all women tend to flock on all the same tiny percentage of men and ignore the rest
This is absolutely not an accidental phenomenon, this is the optimal outcome for dating apps, because that's the only way to prevent women from finding what they are looking for too quickly (and then leaving the app).
I have been in the space for several years - believe me:
NO dating executive thinks like "women leaving too early because they found what they searched". This sentence does not exist in any of the teams.
Instead, they fear that women are leaving too early because of traffic they bought and that they have a bad experience and leaving, so they are no more a magnet to other males to swiper their credit card for a new subscription.
> If stats from dating websites are to be believed, all women tend to flock on all the same tiny percentage of men and ignore the rest.
These are on platforms where you have profile pics and jobs, front and center on your profile, and the algorithm learns from your preferences based on that. The questions on this platform seem to suggest that the algorithm matches based on anything but that, so perhaps we have different, more open-minded outcomes on what a good partner for someone is like rather than who the ideal man/woman is like.
In the UK male plus joint is roughly the same as female.
You also need to take the reasons into account as well as why. There are multiple reasons for this. The better off partner has more to lose from divorce, women tend to get custody of children, they might have different feelings of obligation to keep a marriage going (I cannot extrapolate this to other men, but I felt an obligation not to file for divorce until I had exhausted all other possibilities), social pressures and responses are different, etc.
If the goal is successful relationships, then probably?
If I have 10/10 love for Halle Berry, and she has 4/10 love for my Jeff-Bezos-looking ass, it's the 4/10 that's going to dictate whether we live happily ever after. So our mutual compatibility is probably well below 10/10.
I don't think you can measure love at all, and certainly not guess it based on some info you can type into your phone, so that's rules out before we even get started.
Are there keywords to search for to read more? This is the first time I've heard about this! This is super interesting, what are a few well known other stable matches people deeper into this talk about?
The problem is it's a lattice and not fully ordered. There are cases where there are two or more pairings that are worse for women and better for men, but we cannot determine which pairing is superior to the other overall.
This metric/logic equation does not exist in any dating company, also I highly suspect that anyone working there has hear of the term.
Here is why:
A dating sites primary KPI are mainly "new signups per day" and "subscriptions signed per day". For a lot of reasons listed above,dating sites in general _cant_ever_ work for the majority of people.(yes,there is this one neighbour who is happily married, they exist, sure, but this is not the majority)
Integrating something like Gale-Shapley would require your company to focus on othe matching part and integrate it somehow - but there is no reason for you to do so, because if you keep the primary KPI in the correct range, you are printing money, regardless if your matching algo is scientic sophisticated or not. So why bother?
Apart from that - also this algo cant check for chemical compatibility and friendship compatibility.
If EAC signs a custom kernel I will just boot into that one when I want to play video games. Unlike dual-booting Windows it won't delete my Linux boot entries and I can use all my applications.
reply