oce

Je comprends l'argument que les USA avait peut-être déjà des simulations performantes. Je suppose qu'ils ne partageaient pas forcément les informations pour préserver leur avance technologique et que la France tenait à son indépendance stratégique.

Do you realize you are also spreading “right-wing ideas,” such as “we should not mock them, it would be very mean”?

Do they? You're the first one I read mentioning that.

I'm worried that by using their tactics you contribute to popularizing their ways.

Non, on savait déjà faire des simulations précises de l’efficacité de nos armes nucléaires.

Je ne trouve pas où cela est confirmé dans le rapport. Ils disent que le programme de simulation a été lancé en 1995, puis tous les programmes mentionnés sont post 2005.
Ayant étudié la physique et travaillant dans l'informatique, j'ai des doutes que des simulations informatiques dans les années 90 aient pu produire beaucoup de résultats pertinents.

En outre, en science en général, on essaye toujours de comparer le résultat du modèle informatique qui est inévitablement une simplification de la théorie, avec des observations de la réalité pour s'assurer que la théorie ou le modèle ne créé pas des résultats imaginaires.
Donc d'un point de vue purement recherche physique, ça semble raisonnable de nécessiter des expériences réelles pour encadrer les simulations informatiques.
En considérant l'impact environnemental, je ne dis pas que ça vallait le coup.

C'est d'ailleurs une des raisons principales du développement du Laser Mégajoule par le CEA en ce moment, c'est une expérience qui permet de continuer à observer la physique de haute énergie sans faire exploser de bombe nucléaire. En espérant que ça aura des retomber scientifiques sur d'autres domaines utiles à la société, comme la recherche en physique nucléaire en a déjà beaucoup.

Do you realize you are using similar arguments as the far right / masculinist by mentioning nerds, losers, mockery, charisma, soft boys, soy drinkers, display of power?

I said before I'm considering those who may still listen and the next generation. I know you can't change the current maga-like with public education.

You have to compete with the content they produce regardless.

No, you can educate people from the start so they are able to weed out information by themselves.
Isn't it what you do? You are educated so you are able to detect the far right bullshit.
Or are you really watching a bigger amount of content that ridicule this view in order to counter its effect?

As you can see, I said "reputation". I hate how little they innovate while still selling at premium, but similar to Disney, it is enough for the casual mass.

But how much of their resources did that represent? 1%, 10%, 50%? This being a problem really depends on that number.
They are trying to find ways to earn money independent of Google royalties so they can keep making massive FOSS projects, that compete with FAANG technology, independently. For me all the community troubles and failed projects mostly show how hard this is.

Do it if you want to, but I feel like it mostly a feel good activity rather than something effective.

For me the only sustainable and worthy solution is massively reinvesting in public education. It's the only way to lift a country's average education equally.

The fact that the Nintendos are locked down, family friendly and with a reputation of good production quality (similar to Disney), are also important points for non-nerdy parents and casual gamers who don't want to navigate the ocean of PC gaming and its risks.

The first step toward meaningful change begins with us. We must abandon our craving for glossy (and therefore glassy) devices, and instead embrace hardware that may not be as immediately pleasing to the eye (as it is the case with e.g. Fairphones or the PinePhone), but is built to be slightly more durable, somewhat repairable, and capable of outlasting even today’s limited commitments to software updates.

Fairphone and PinePhone being only mentioned anecdotally for being too pretty, and I guess not as sturdy as the author wants, is quite weird for an article about reducing fragility and improving repairability.

I'm skeptical about how efficient that could be. Are you going to compete with how much content they are able to produce to ridicule it? I feel like there's some Brandolini's-like law at play here.
What should I see about teenagers? Last I heard, masculinism is growing among them.

Would you have a source that details how Mozilla spends money on the software development of Firefox vs other projects? I couldn't find it in the financial report, so I guess you have another source.