Localhost is an entire /8, so you have a few million possible addresses you can bind to if you want, all on whatever your preferred dev server port is.
""Show me your flowcharts and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your tables, and I won’t usually need your flowcharts; they’ll be obvious.""
(Though from your description I suspect that's also not the one?)
But concurrent GC is the basis for making deterministic GC, since it gives you the option of scheduling GC work whenever you like rather than pausing the world.
Some concurrent GCs are also deterministic while others aren’t. I’ve written both kinds.
The work was done by DeepMind, which is in the UK. Weather in the UK is quite variable and difficult to predict (which is why the English are always talking about it).
It just provides a different API for storage. You could say the same thing about IndexedDB being added when LocalStorage already existed - it's just a different API with some different performance characteristics.
And no, it's not for the benefit of you the user, but it's not to your detriment either. It's mostly for the benefit of the web developer. (It might be good for users indirectly if web developers make good use of it)
Although I think it's extremely unlikely, I almost wish subversion would have a resurgence. I like git, personally, but I've seen so many people struggle with it, and the problems of putting large/binary assets into the repository are real. Yes, there's LFS now, but (as far as I know) you then need to make up front decisions about what to store directly and what to store indirectly as LFS objects.
Subversion was much better than anything existing before, but a very fundamental problem is that it treats branches and tags, which are conceptually different, the same way. This results in branches not tracking well their history and tags behaving like moving targets.
I'm no fan of Musk. However, building companies is generally considered to be a good thing. Doing it with taxpayer money is only bad if it's somehow fraudulent - if you make a company and get a government contract and you actually fulfill that contract, that's neutral or good.
Spreading misinformation is definitely bad, but I don't think I'd class it as terrorism.
Regardless, I don't see any chance of the US throwing Musk out.