I feel like I'm missing something here. It's really just a single sentence? Why would so many sign their name to this? It's like signing your name to "Keep children safe" but providing zero remarks, feedback, suggestions, etc for HOW and with WHAT and by WHO.
Why would so many academics / industry leaders sign their name to what amounts of marketing fluff?
Scalpers are always a short term thing. None of them ever order supply that will last years, usually 3-6 months at most. If you end up being caught holding the bag with a normal amount of demand, you then break even at best or likely lose a little re-selling them at the prices you paid for.
A year from now nvidia will have new GPUs and the 3000 series will be relatively easy to buy.
Considering encrypted messages have to both be encrypted and decrypted, I don't think his statement is necessarily against encrypted. I assumed he meant preventing the sending of known materials like that and / or the opening of it (which wouldn't interfere with end-to-end encryption at all).
This really reminds me, it's been two decades now since I've taken _any_ Algebra. I'd really love to go re-learn it from the basics on up. I mean, I still remember a lot of it here and there but some sort of refresher course up to doing more advanced would be awesome.
> Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent?
I think the idea here is since both SARS and Covid-19 are part of the coronavirus type, a vaccine for SARS would make modification and rapid deployment of a Covid-19 vaccine significantly better.
Really, any existing coronavirus vaccine would have helped research efforts tremendously.
> SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market.
Highly unlikely. SARS ended up infecting an order of magnitude less people _in its entire 2 year run_ than Covid-19.
We will have this virus around for at least 5+ years, possibly forever.
It's pretty amazing that a company in the financial sector that holds a lot of people's money doesn't have the ability to, say, cut to a backup system.
Considering all of their past fumbles (like thinking FDIC covered brokerage accounts and the multitudes of technically issues) I wonder if their user-base will finally start migrating elsewhere. It's clear they're don't have the talent to handle this.
Do we know how much emissions can be attributed to Amazon / AWS? I'm curious if this $10 billion fund could offset that or if it's too small to cover their own use.
Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:
> Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions by 2030.
Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect.
In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports.
Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall.
Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is in charge of implementing this directive (I'm not sure how this works in EU law) can interpret it either way?
The joint motion points to adopting Directive 2014/53/EU which requires common _chargers_ but says nothing about the port that the phone uses. As far as I can tell this is only for the back half of the charger / brick that connects to the wall.
Yet the Apple statement, and most of the articles about this (including the linked one), are talking about the phone's connector and talks about lightning and usb-c. Most of the comments online are talking about how this forces Apple to use usb-c.
So, which is it? Isn't this just regulating the power bricks / back half of the charging equation? I don't see anything in the joint motion or directive stating a connector on a device has to be uniform at all.
I worked on a large DoD contract where there was a core of about 12-20 people doing the majority of the work and about 140 additional people just... having a job.
The legal requirements to collecting money on defense contracts pretty much always does this.
> It makes me realize that Google's no humans policy -- is it a policy? -- is actually a strength here. My domains purchased through Google are safe from social engineering because, well, there are no humans to contact to ask them to manually move domains.
Except Google actually has a lot of humans in the loop for Google Domains. I was having an issue transferring a domain and I clicked a button to chat and was talking with a real person in about a minute.
Granted, they may have better security procedures but they're still humans.
Oh for sure! When I worked as a contractor I worked with many departments but even the groups I worked with didn't represent the entire department they were in. But it was a very common theme with every single one that I worked with.
I'd love to see some data on FOSS usage across the DoD but that type of audit is likely impossible.
I didn't say it was someone random but it's from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It's a non-profit, which is good, but they do other things so getting press for the Doomsday clock is highly beneficial for them.
I'm not saying they update it _just_ to get press but I'm sure they highly enjoy the press they get every-time they touch the thing.
Their reasoning seems sound to me but I'm amused that someone built a clock that shows what their current guess is for when "doomsday" will happen and they get free press every single time they change it.
I feel like I'm missing out on doing something silly that I can periodically change, call a press conference for and get some attention.
> The motto seems to be: "Open Source is BAD! How are we going the get support?! Let's just buy a product or solution from a vendor"
Not really accurate anymore. Maybe it was true a decade ago but when I worked in the DoD space almost every single project was attempting to use ONLY FOSS where possible and to try and move off of companies proprietary stuff.
Unfortunately most of the projects I've seen ended up failing and Palantir usually sweeps in and gets a contract because the users really like it.
There is a huge want inside of the DoD for FOSS, it's just mortally wounded by others who want systems like Palantir or through simple incompetence.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-tria...