It's regulation from the previous European Parliament and the first von der Leyen Commission. The new parliament from 2024 has a lot fewer red/green members (still enough to cause trouble, though) and the second von der Leyen Commission has a different agreement with the current parliament. The current Council is also a lot different than the council of just a year ago -- not in terms of members but in terms of opinions. A lot of the craziness is being rolled back, maybe this will also be rolled back.
The link is not about the 2024 framework regulation (from just before the elections) but about some new supplementary regulation that the 2024 regulation allowed for and required -- in order to provide clarifications and fix some of the mistakes of the initial regulation.
The reason for divergence is actually much simpler. NASDAQ 100 includes data center builders, Morgan Stanley software index doesn't. Stock market is going down across the board if you exclude data center construction.
No. More than 80% of Mozilla Corp's income is a yearly payment from Google. [0]
The payment will stop immediately if Google thinks it's no longer needed, or if federal prosecutors (who have determined this payment is illegal) decide the remedy is to stop the payment. [1]
The CEO's job is simple. Say "I think we should take Google's money again this year", and then pocket several million of it. Ca-ching! What are your plans for post-Google-money? Uh uh... AI? Sell out our users to advertisers? [2] It's not looking good.
The Firefox market share continues to dwindle. The board continues to hob-nob with San Francisco socialites and "activists" and use Mozilla as a piggybank to fund their chums. [edit: removed line about Mitchell Baker as she does seem to have finally left]
> Mitchell Baker did not leave the gravy train by stepping down as CEO, she merely moved to a different seat on the gravy train - chair of the Mozilla Foundation
Mitchell has not been a member of the Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation boards since February 2025.
That's a bad rubric to judge by, in this case. CEO pay is at a historic high, in fact I'm pretty sure the last time the gap in wage between median workers and CEOs was this high was the roaring 20's, which famously went quite well for the economy.
PSA: POSIX shells (bash etc) do the same thing for && and ||. `true || false && false; echo $?` will be 1, not 0, because it evaluates `true || false -> true; true && false -> false`, not `false && false -> false; true || false -> true`. Don't assume like I once did that they have precedence like they have in C etc :D
This approach is, arguably, more readable because it relies on a simple left-to-right evaluation. Programmers don't have to recall the complex, though often familiar, rules of operator precedence.
RPN is slightly easier to parse and interpret but more difficult for most humans to parse and interpret. This is the middle ground that most everyone can quickly and easily adapt to writing and reading but would still be efficient on most any system.
It’s definitely easier to parse, but you can use shunting yard to do operator precedence parsing using very little extra memory and no recursion. I feel like the language is just poorly designed.
To be charitable to its original designers, information was much less easily accessible in the 1960s than today-although the shunting yard algorithm had been published in the research literature in 1961, practitioners working 5-6 years later may plausibly have been unaware of it-it wasn’t like nowadays where they could easily discover it in Wikipedia or by asking an LLM.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm sure a lot of weird / bad language design choices can be chalked up to this (COBOL...). Now that C and Pascal derived languages have been around for a long time, even if you don't know about how parsers work, everyone knows that certain syntax / semantics are at least possible since they're the norm, and I suppose that wasn't the case back then.
I implemented the same in some of my programming languages. If you look into very generic mixfix operators in some languages like Agda, you'll realize that operator precedence is a mess and it feels so much better to get rid of it. Of course, it makes the language unusable as a mainstream language, but it makes so much more logical sense.
The explanation that makes most sense to me is that it's mostly to avoid having to explicitly write out parentheses a lot of the time. Especially for things like polynomials, which are a bunch of multiplied terms added together, eg 3x+2y and not (3*x)+(2*y). And in polynomials you can even drop the explicit multiplication symbol, so it's much neater. And once you've done this for algebra now you have to do it for plain arithmetic as well to make it all match up, and 3*5+2*7 gives the same answer as evaluating the polynomial at 5,7
Not just simplicity-the original implementation was for a very resource-constrained 1960s minicomputer, where a more complex implementation would have slowed the system down even more and left less memory for running the actual business application
One of my favorite things about Curtis Yarvin is that one of his main ideas is laughably easy to prove wrong. He says that whenever we go into the past, the previous generation seems to be more "right-wing" than the current one. Which is almost comically wrong. For example, you get Victorian Era being much more conservative than its predecessor, Georgian Era. Same goes for Christian Roman Empire vs Pagan Roman Empire, Nazi Germany vs Weimar Germany, etc etc. There are literally dozens of examples. It seems that Yarvin genuinely doesn't know any of these high school-level facts.
Well, it's not about being monotonically the case year-over-year, but the overal "weighted average" direction of the vector pointing towards less right-wing.
Obviously e.g. the Weimar youth was liberal and partying and then Germans turned to fascism in the 30s. But that was a temporary setback, not the general direction of change. Overall Germans of 20th century are much less conservative and right wing than Germans of the 19th century, same for 18th century and so on.
It's also not really about antiquity, but about the arrow of modernity (say, 16th century onwards). The concept of left/right wing is not something applicable to Pagans and Romans (although both were way more "right wing" than the Christian era if we try to judge them under this anachronism).
