A cool thing you can do with Wikipedia is anchor links for sections like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus#Vaccination

Or even in the case just link to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_vaccine

Edit

After reading through, what’s probably most important is

There is a candidate vaccine against the Marburg virus called rVSV-MARV. It was developed alongside vaccines for closely-related Ebolaviruses by the Canadian government in the early 2000s, twenty years before the outbreak. Production and testing of rVSV-MARV is blocked by legal monopolies held by the Merck Group. Merck acquired rights to all the closely-related candidate vaccines in 2014, but declined to work on most of them, including the Marburg vaccine, for economic reasons. While Merck returned the rights to the abandoned vaccines to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the vital rVSV vaccine production techniques which Merck had gained (while bringing the closely-related rVSV-ZEBOV vaccineinto commercial use in 2019, with GAVI funding) remain Merck’s, and cannot be used by anyone else wishing to develop a rVSV vaccine.

I would argue that they care about the ROI more than anything else. Always has been

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

Yeah this feels like a “no true Scot” fallacy to me, where anything he says should be invalid because of his wife’s position, which is false

Excellent points. I don’t think China wants a war with the US directly. And I do think I was just saying China and generalizing as well, as some of the party wants war and some don’t; But I still will maintain that they won’t start a war because that puts them into a situation as the aggressor, specifically to their people, but if their propaganda machine can spin it better if they join a war it’s much better.

Unlike the top commenter, I don’t think think NK will do anything if SK flies jets from the Middle East out of there. I’m purely responding to you claiming that China would stay out of the war.

Article 6 only states

The Contracting Parties hold that the unification of Korea must be realized along peaceful and democratic lines and that such a solution accords exactly with the national interests of the Korean people and the aim of preserving peace in the Far East.

China is itching for war and for someone else to start it. There’s a reason they are constantly provoking Filipino ships and the like. The US is a young country, and war is a business to us with how capitalism and war-as-profit has developed. On the other hand, China as exists now was chartered in 1949, and is looking to prove itself as a superpower.

If North Korea makes a military move for pretty much any reason, they will specifically not say it is for the reunification of Korea and rather the defense of their nation, which gives China perfect legal grounds on that loose charter to participate.

Except

In 1961, the two countries signed the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty, whereby China pledged to immediately render military and other assistance by all means to its ally against any outside attack. This agreement was renewed in 1981, 2001 and 2021.

So that would basically be the start of WWIII

Praise god. Allahu akbar. Toda la’el. Whatever the words, this is a religious war. Israel is no different from the Crusades. I fear that until religion finally dies it will take a far more amount of humanity with it.

I was referring to Clipchamp, not the OS

Because it’s a “free” piece of software so you are the product and therefore they want you to agree that they can harvest and sell your data

Investors hate this one glitch!

I now want a community led historical reenactment of loose tie wearing software devs in the 60s where they are just chain smoking and banging out COBOL or Fortran punch cards

Right. Given the option I will always choose to work with a decent programmer who can communicate well and documents their code, over a very strong programmer that doesn’t think they should waste time with documentation

As long as “cleaner than you found it” also includes “better documented.” I’ve worked with people who think that “the code should speak for itself” to the point that they will make biased decisions with no explanation or documentation and then if you ask them about it after their response is “look at the PR for how that decision was made.” I’m not going to git blame and find your PR to find an outcome from an argument between two people that after scrolling just says “sometimes the API returns a JSON string here instead of nested JSON so we have this conditional” when that could be a comment

While I would hope that’s the case, I firmly believe the GOP / russia would have doubled down on the misinformation that was already all over the place, and the ignorant on facebook and other social media still would have eaten that shit up. I think in the voters that mattered Bernie would have made a much bigger impression, and the policies he worked to pass would have been much more beneficial, but I don’t think it would have been this magic situation where all the dumb people disappeared and the rich people stopped trying to get the dumb people to vote make them richer

Right, I based it on an estimate on the size of the company and how many devs they’ve had. But if a 7MB file doubled their build size and nobody noticed for 5 years, it likely wasn’t code reviewed or committed and rather just added somewhere, It’d be my guess that it’s a pretty small team, and if they’re willing to call anyone at this point anyway as they only have a few devs, and not just remove the file, they’re probably unsure on if it serves any sort of point, which usually would be clear in a commit or PR

You think they’d call up devs who left them just to ask if they happen to know about a random file?

I mean, that’s what op said happened. Literally with the verbiage of “file we found” and not “file you committed”

Ah I could see that. I took it as them not knowing where the file came from at all, so they’re just asking all the devs who would have had access at that point, which is why it was “hey do you know anything about this file?” and not “is there a specific reason you committed this file to the build?”

Most large scale open source projects at this point are funded by somebody. usually because they have benefit to an enterprise somewhere. But I don’t know if an alternative browser really provides much enterprise support anywhere, sadly.

Probably the $500 million or so that Google pays them every year

It sounds like they weren’t using any form of version control, so that’s definitely on them at this point