Then you have the Pyrenees between the Iberian peninsula and France. Aside from being mountainous, also fairly low population density, and rather poorer regions to the point that you'll find abandoned villages.
So, the only sensible connections are along the Mediterranean (Catalonia) or the Atlantic coast (Basque Country).
Another reason is that Spain has high-speed rails only since the nineties.
IRC, just in the recent years, there was a high-speed connection built to the Basque Country (from Madrid). From the Basque Country you can go to France with a light rail.
So, the only high-speed connection is along the Mediterranean.
In a way, it's a center/periphery problem.
France is prioritising connections from/to Paris, Spain from/to Madrid.
Unless either side improves the network at their side of the border, it also makes limited sense to improve yours.
I create a malicious chart or compromise one you use (with symlink to an arbitrary file and code).
You download charts either as a tarball from a helm repo or oci registry with helm and helm will create the files and links with your permissions, and send me whatever I wanted to extract from your system.
Yes, you should check things you download from the internet.
But also, that is not how a chart is supposed to work.
It is being done in countries like Switzerland and Norway. Not exactly poor countries.
As I understand, in both cases, the tax resident has to declare their global (netto) wealth and have to pay a small percentage (close or less than 1%) of that wealth.
Don't you ever had tax obligations due to shares? Sell-to-cover is one solution. But I suspect at that scale you get enough dividends from these companies to cover.
> It created a common market based on the free movement of:
> goods
> people
> services
> capital.
I assume we can differ in the opinion of how much of that has been achieved and at what time, and I agree it is far from perfect, but your statement is rather undifferentiated and categorical.
Funny that you say that. In my personal experience, the degree of support is one of the reasons to switch. Like any large vendor, it takes almost more time to convince them that it there is a problem, then it would take to fix it, if you have the technical skills in house. (That was enough for Google to switch to their own switches).
Haven't worked yet with IBM, but if they are of equal level, then I'd rather avoid them.
But since you say IBM, they have IBM Cloud Manager, and through Redhat also an Openstack offer, and with Openshift a K8S offer. Various vendors offer either or both.
There are also companies which operate internal cloud providers for other companies.
Various public cloud providers offer you to operate your datacenter with their API in-hose.
Yes, it comes with their hardware, but guess what, in three years chances are half of your hardware is deprecated and has been replaced anyway.
Yes, all that requires effort. Considerable effort. But it is a one-time effort (i.e. fixed costs) compared to a X-fold increase of licensing costs. So, you look at the ROI, consider the risk of having that degree of exposure, and guess what...
To reiterate: It doesn't have to be all in one go, it doesn't mean it has to be all of it. Maybe some of your payload will always stay on vmware, but thinking you can ask the big companies for 20x the license costs, and expect 20x the revenue is rather odd.
> Large customers are sticky. You can't migrate your hypervisor or cloud provider overnight. These are multi-year projects.
Yes, but that scale, everything is an multi-year effort.
The contracts likely as well.
That doesn't mean, it's not going to happen.
And it's not like all has to happen in one go.
So before you were all in VMware, and that vendor is practically promising to hike up the prices to make you bleed.
What are you gonna do?
I'd rather start early to have a migration path, even if it is just for negotiation purposes.
And if it's someone who has the resources to that, it's large customers.
I think, that is a bit besides the point I wanted to make.
Yes, it is very hard to know a priori, what is life-saving, and what not.
No, I do not wanted to suggest that the work of doctors it is not important.
The common understanding of doctors (their self-understanding included) is, that their work is very important, to the point that they exploit themselves. Or allow themselves to be "exploited".
In this forum, more commonly you have people here working on productive systems, which can empathize with the feeling the responsibility for the operations and not wanting to drop the ball.
People with that mindset think, they may safe a patient / the system, but working oneself to exhaustion won't solve those problems. And on the contrary, the exhaustion may be a contributing factor of making things worse in various ways. One directly by your actions, the other indirectly by covering up systemic problems.
That's a straw man. We do not need "endless doctors" just more (or some way to use them more efficiently).
The number of doctors are limited by the pipeline to educate them.
Most countries I know, the number of people admitted to study medicine exceeds the number people wanting to study medicine vastly exceeds the positions to do so, and admissions are highly competitive. To a point, I'd say, that it is becoming ridiculous.
So, there is not a lack of people wanting to become doctors, but a lack of people allowed to even start to study to become one.
Sorry, that is bollocks. That is the story most people believe, and makes for a convenient story for those people actually to blame. Funnily, it is also the story most doctors themselves seem to chose to believe in.
First, those are not the only choices. There is also the the option of training and hiring more doctors. 2
Probably, there is also an option of making more efficient use of doctors time, but that one is more complicated.
Most of the work of doctors is not life-saving.
I think, you see a standard problem of pushing shit down or up.
Government lowers budget, pushes quotas down, which gets pushed down further until it reaches the bottom rank and file, the doctors.
They have to "do more with less" (Not limited to public sector, see Boeing), and that works for a while, until it doesn't.
Forget about "breast is best". Fed is best.
If breastfeeding works, great. Giving the bottle won't stop your child taking the breast.
The evidence for "breast is best" is limited.
Divide the work, and give each other some time off. Both of your mental well-being is important as well.
Wanting the best for your child is normal, but remember: the best is the enemy of good.
Regarding the TV: the evidence there is also limited. Don't want to discourage you.
Most studies are observational. Most of them are done with volunteers in an university related environment, the differences are usually small.
If you want to follow that advice and it makes you feel better, great. But don't stress yourself out over it.
The most important thing is that your child has loving and caring parents which are there for it. And that takes effort too.
All the best.