According to distrowatch, its last release was in 2009, and still featuring a linux kernel from the 2.6 branch.

There is currently an ongoing debate about this infobox section.

Just one example for a vote to change the tag:

Change. Articles like Foreign Policy’s “Iran’s victory is more Pyrrhic than it looks” illustrate the need for a more nuanced label. Both sides inflicted damage on each other, the leadership of both sides are claiming victory, and both sides obtained some concessions from the other. A large number of claims in both directions are obviously politically charged and motivated, so the safer approach for now is to label it as “inconclusive” with a link to an “Aftermath” section summarizing the main arguments of commentators, as with War of Attrition. Chagropango (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The vessel contained five liters of wine mixed with the cremains of the deceased and a gold ring at the bottom.

No sip for me, thanks

I think the “it retains 98% charge” quote might be misleading. Thats true for the capacity (in Ah), but not for the energy (in Wh). The report shows this clearly in the tables:

Efficiency is about 83% if my math is right (which is still good).

The report is from an independant institute from Finland, not Poland:

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd

Thanks to this post about math humor that brought me here.

For that time (at least the 2014 era), that was quite a leap forward.

Who doesn’t want one? ;)

The “atomic laboratory” was also sold at most 5000 times, that’s a fraction of the “lawn dart” sales.

If the atomic laboratory was sold as often as lawn dart, we’d probably hear more about it.

Apparently, as of a 2006 publication, this wasn’t even #1 on the list of the most dangerous toys. It scored second after lawn darts.

The Wikipedia article on “Lawn darts” says that they are the reason for “thousands of injuries and at least three children’s deaths”.

Many of the issues of LLMs mentioned in this article are also just writing that doesn’t fit wikipedias style, e.g. emotions, claims without citations.

AI chatbots use the em dash (—) more frequently than most editors do, especially in places where human authors are much more likely to use parentheses or commas.

I think thats a reasonable take. But it surely depends on your personal style how often you use this type of dash.

For me, regarding every text that contains em dashes is clearly unreasonable, but using it as one of many indicators is perfectly fine.

This is probably one of the best and most detailed descriptions on how to spot AI writing. Some of these points are well known (the EM dash, the frequent use of bold highlights), and others are very specific to wikipedia (eg. inconsistent markdown).

There’s a great video on this subject by the creator of the youtube channel “practical angineering”.

How Do Fish Ladders Work?

Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia

Is there a phobia for long words, too?

yeah we don’t do that anymore. Might learn something we’d rather not know.

Due to the current news of more tariffs, it’s probably a good time to read about the effects when Bush did a similar thing 20 years back.

“With the latest update, you are now unable to read any encrypted PMs before may 2025. Sorry for the inconvenience.”

You’re basically correct, the link is through the page Castle Bravo detonation.

It’s a fun game: Start with one article, e.g. Nuclear Fusion, and click through the links until you get to get to another, previously defined article, e.g. Godzilla.

There is a solution in the linked article that these two articles are only two steps apart.