Without some research the current President would probably not be healthy enough to be in office, clearly we have to reduce the risk of that happening again.
I don't think revenue numbers reflect that we are in a ditching the cloud hype cycle, particularly given emerging political risks.. At any given time there is hype for every possibility with controversy or ramifications and the software market is so much larger than what many of us were used to that any group seems large enough to be most of the market.
Linus was pretty clear about his views on working with vendors, etc, in his Autobiography so I'm not sure if/why there would be surprise.
Solaris, Java and C/C++ conpilers were all owned by Sun. I feel that is a situation without anyone even trying to maintain whatever separation some might expect from Linus.
Sure some users would keep the CA active out of fear, while everyone paying digicert would also begin to move out of fear.. What portion of the strange sort of sites that couldn't figure out how to get off but could figure out how to renew would bother with paying for a different error message?
I hear a lot about how ahead of their time they were and how everything since is based on them.. But it seems like newer things since then are all being built on the shoulders of a generation of thousands of giants instead of a generation where we can only identify 2.
I think the pressures are from everywhere all the time. There's always a risk that something picks up enough steam to replace an OS even if it is a derivative or fork of the same OS. For C++ adoption, Linus gauged correctly that it's steam is limited and even directly taunting its supporters had low risk in a project that could challenge Linux because its set of choices over time has had many foot guns, where many developers would intentionally use what any user would consider a foot gun. As long as Linus didn't step in to define strong rules for how C++ would be used there was no likely challenger over any reasonable amount of time (for Linux/C). This is not true for rust.
In finance you can strut around wall street and cause a bidding war. In chip design you can move your life to a specific shitsville to work for the other employer and get sued before they decide to close down again.
I hear stories about them and whether the con-artist got access to their digital wallet, whether they made it to a safe room in the home invasion and, of course, whether they got rights to mine the dump.
ETH is supposed to be an electronic contracts market.. Is everyone who writes a contract from now on going to include code to block using these coins as collateral? If there's no consensus to interfere with the transaction, I assume people will watch the coins in motion and extend a larger map of tainted accounts and coins, yet be unable to interfere in many algorithm decided actions.
I had a similarly funny discussion with a proper engineering student on refrigeration insulation and why it isn't more natural to express it similarly with temporarily trapping cold given the inevitable nature of heat/entropy.
You can build real high density urban places outside an old city center and they can function quite a bit better in terms of neighborhood restaurants, schools, markets, etc..
There are plenty of places where the old city is not all that vibrant or interesting (and where a family is so rare the question is how to get the few kids to a lively district every morning) and I don't have a fiddle small enough for the owner's opportunity loss.
It might be the hardest proof to expect, but there is an unarchive button and people archive for reasons like moving rather than stopping a project permanently.
This loss is more than 5% of their holdings.. To me that implies the supposed benefit of crypto is nonexistent. If an institution is making so much money off your crypto assets that they can return 5% of them, they are a bank doing whatever it was that was so evil.
I don't really get that point. We have decided against removing the prodigies from the normal environment so its not at all uncommon to see someone who was expected to be the most promising for society held back by a basic social or economic trap they should have avoided if they valued putting the slightest thought into our mundane things.
The article goes on to make better arguments than the comments imply, but still treats the opposition as a strawman. Showing a student how compound interest works on one loan or account is microeconomics and it was never as ineffective as teaching kids smoking public health statistics which is more like teaching macroeconomics and expecting children to be afraid they will ruin the GDP.
Oh then I totally disagree (or don't understand why you would need to see a psychoanalysis of a blacksmith to evaluate their offerings?). Many projects have places that need some complexity, configuration or advanced tools that doesn't imply the hardware store should stop selling average hammers or make you wade through an aisle of crap from providers like peloton to see if they better meet your needs.
(I.e. show me where in the article he replaced a standard tool like the hammer or pot with a complex one customized to exactly what he wanted to solve or explain why that advanced tool wouldn't suck given that there's a lot more details than one would expect.)
I like these tools because they are minimalist.. I don't really care for the fact that they are C/make oriented and would rather help someone rewriting them in go or rust than show that I have a non minimal amount of scar tissue to work with a needlessly complicated past.
It's not clear to me if the light stays on, a PR department is likely to not be vague about something positive. Anyone used to past vehicles of similar size may expect less risk driving a car with no power steering to a shop (or just away from a risky place to be stopped).
I spent a long time trying to figure out who he could have been comparing himself to every time he was in the media for decades, until I was watching the Simpsons and realized Krusty had always been there but was no longer the worlds most beloved clown.
It looks like the site you are referring to quotes pure ISP costs while the matrix foundation bridge costs include maintaining bridge related software they would otherwise archive.
There's certainly many dimensions along these lines that if you don't think about them in relation to the type of software development you are doing, and what you have done, you will take a long time to improve.. But this being the model for all software development (such that all others are bad) strikes me as a missing chapter from printf.