Do you really harbor so much charity towards tech CEOs that you can't see its other meaning as at least equally as likely?
It costs Mozilla literally nothing to reassure its privacy and user-controlled principles. Instead we got a jk...unless... type of response. This is cowardice and like another commenter has said, a negotiation offer disguised as a mission statement.
This feeling of verification >> generation anxiety bears a resemblance to that moment when you're learning a foreign language, you speak a well-prepared sentence, and your correspondent says something back, of which you only understand about a third.
In like fashion, when I start thinking of a programming statement (as a bad/rookie programmer) and an assistant completes my train of thought (as is default behaviour in VS Code for example), I get that same feeling that I did not grasp half the stuff I should've, but nevertheless I hit Ctrl-Return because it looks about right to me.
this is something one can look in further. it is really probabilistic checkable proofs underneath, and we are naturally looking for places where it needs to look right, and use that as a basis of assuming the work is done right.
We might be dealing with a MiniScribe situation (bricks being shipped to warehouses to inflate inventory statistics). And if so, we'll need about 2 years till all of the new DCs catch up with getting hardware wheeled in. But by then, it will have to be considered obsolete...
I might be an useful idiot in this case, but I can't imagine they would be that late to the game. I suppose they get dibs on anything that's a year ahead of its time before manufacturers send it to the unwashed masses.
Devil's advocate; DoD is probably (read: certainly) one of the sample customers for Intel's 18a node. If the rumors around that manufacturing process are anything close to true, the DoD is probably not super satisfied with the yield and probably can't imagine any cutting-edge applications for the chips.
That puts them in an awkward position and somewhat unable to cut corners around Nvidia. It's possible that 18a has improved a lot recently, but it's also possible that the feds are a big-ticket player in the GPGPU arena.
Calc has many features focused on correctness and reliability. Excel is a joke on both of those accounts.
Turns out close to 100% of the spreadsheet users out there don't care about that. It's unnerving and absurd, and IMO, what is even the point of all the effort of entering your data and working it if you don't care about the result being correct? But that's how the world is.
You definitely have a dull imagination. If the software itself is secure, containerized version of Immich behind a containerized version of nginx proxy manager is probably as secure as you can get. Also google security tends to be mainly leaning towards securing google and less towards securing google's (non paying) customers.
I have it set up in a container that I keep updated. Then it's reverse proxied by another container which runs nginx proxy manager, which keeps the HTTPS encryption online. So far, the maintenance has only been checking whether a new version has been released and docker pulling the images, then restarting the containers.
EU has tried repeatedly and still tried to undermine safe communication, end to end encryption (chat control), freedom of the press and of personal speech (democracy shield).
Its environmental regulations have endlessly complicated the most basic of business operations like selling anything that comes in cardboard boxes or fixing a car with non-OEM parts.
Useless EU inventions that come to mind are the cucumber and banana size regulations, non-removable bottle caps, mandatory 15-minute screen standbys or click through a menu, sound volume warnings on phones, mandatory driver assistance systems in cars (that don't work well in cheap vehicles, but still increase the cost and can't be permanently turned of as a preference), mandatory start-stop in ICE vehicles (which lowers lifetime of bearing materials), rising consumer goods import costs because de minimis is getting axed etc.
> EU has tried repeatedly and still tried to undermine safe communication, end to end encryption (chat control), freedom of the press and of personal speech (democracy shield).
Completely agree but that's from national governments, not the EU parliament; and I'm glad we've been able to keep Chat Control tamed for now, even though it will keep being brought up. Still, it hasn't become regulation nor even a discussion in the Parliament.
> Useless EU inventions that come to mind are the cucumber and banana size regulations, non-removable bottle caps, mandatory 15-minute screen standbys or click through a menu, sound volume warnings on phones, mandatory driver assistance systems in cars (that don't work well in cheap vehicles, but still increase the cost and can't be permanently turned of as a preference), mandatory start-stop in ICE vehicles (which lowers lifetime of bearing materials), rising consumer goods import costs because de minimis is getting axed etc.
Cucumber and banana regulations are for grading, exactly to harmonise trade so those can be sold at similar levels of grades and marketed as those grades, it doesn't mean you can't sell out-of-shape bananas or cucumbers, it's a deceptive move used by all EU-sceptic movement (like Brexit) while the regulations themselves are not an issue.
Non-removable bottle caps is also a non-issue, it really reduced the littering of bottle caps I used to see everywhere in Sweden, I don't see bottle caps on the ground anymore. The cost is a non-issue as well since after changing production lines it just goes down for every new batch.
Start-stop lowering lifetime of bearings while reducing pollution by idling vehicles, good trade-off.
De minimis still exist, current regulations are set all the way to 2030 [0].
You changed my mind on some points, but this still ticks me off
> Start-stop lowering lifetime of bearings while reducing pollution by idling vehicles, good trade-off.
In my opinion this is not a good trade off. It puts vehicles that would be perfectly serviceable out of circulation, which has other environmental implications for breaking them down, and also another vehicle replaces it. I see the point behind it, but I still find it wasteful considering that we could have a machine last longer.
>Non-removable bottle caps is also a non-issue, it really reduced the littering of bottle caps I used to see everywhere in Sweden, I don't see bottle caps on the ground anymore. The cost is a non-issue as well since after changing production lines it just goes down for every new batch.
Sorry, I wasn't aware of your pollution situation. For me, it makes bottles harder to reuse because you kinda have to detach them if you want to refill and reuse the bottles, which leave sharp plastic barbs at the attachment points. Also, annoying when you're trying to have a drink while driving. It's not a big issue, but where I leave, pollution from bottle caps was a non-issue from the start, so I don't really have a reason to like the change.
> In my opinion this is not a good trade off. It puts vehicles that would be perfectly serviceable out of circulation, which has other environmental implications for breaking them down, and also another vehicle replaces it. I see the point behind it, but I still find it wasteful considering that we could have a machine last longer.
Bearings suffer wear and tear, and needs replacement, you don't replace your whole car because of worn bearings unless you're talking about complete engine rebuilds (like piston rings/rod bearings/camshaft), I still would like some data to substantiate this discussion because I don't have it.
> Sorry, I wasn't aware of your pollution situation. For me, it makes bottles harder to reuse because you kinda have to detach them if you want to refill and reuse the bottles, which leave sharp plastic barbs at the attachment points. Also, annoying when you're trying to have a drink while driving. It's not a big issue, but where I leave, pollution from bottle caps was a non-issue from the start, so I don't really have a reason to like the change.
It's not a dire pollution situation, it just normally done by teenagers not caring too much and littering their soda bottle caps around. I don't see why you need to remove the bottle cap for refilling, I do it just as I used to and nothing has changed that requires me to remove bottle caps for them to be refilled/reused.
So it's not a big issue, it made it harder for people to litter while not having big drawbacks, I don't understand why it was an example of bad regulations...
Whats the problem with attached bottle caps or volume warnings?
I used to find these things annoying when I was younger but I do realise things like that can be very useful, even though they are small steps.
Chat Control is being pushed by national governments, either directly or through the meeting of their leaders, the Council. EU institutions are the ones continuously keeping it at bay.
Where I live, we have and exercise the right to legislative referendum, which stops such legislation in a very clear and decisive way. If something like this passes in the EU, we have no way to fight it (international treaties are not subjects to referendum). The influence in EU parliament is delegated on so many levels that it's impossible to transparently see what your vote influences.
Chat control is being pushed by national police forces as well as europol. It's... Lobbying. Basically. The whole story of how it started with ylva johannsson is the result of strong lobbying by Thorn and Ashton Kutcher
Crash safety has become grossly exagerrated because the standards have been sharply rising last few years. Most 15yo cars will keep you safe just fine in a median crash.
A 15 year old car currently is going for 5 figures - not a shitbox. Not unless it’s a shelll of rust held together by bondo. Then your crash standards or whatever year are meaningless as the chassis may have 25% or less of its design strength.
It costs Mozilla literally nothing to reassure its privacy and user-controlled principles. Instead we got a jk...unless... type of response. This is cowardice and like another commenter has said, a negotiation offer disguised as a mission statement.
reply