I think it's one of those ideas that only works with nostalgia or hoarding impulses to support it.
I think normal virtualization approaches are far more power efficient, at a fleet level, than any kind of cluster of laptop scenarios. You can pile in the cores and amortize the costs of memory controllers etc. over a large set of guests.
It is a funny way to get features of both worlds. One reason to want colo (rather than VMs) is for predictability, but laptops still give you the funny throughput problems, because of thermal throttling instead of competing guests.
Ironically, capital gains tax rates are essentially regressive as they are lower than the typical marginal tax rate for someone earning at those levels. They are a big handout to the capital class, not some special punishment.
So to whine about them shows a baseline belief that income should not be taxed at all, I guess?
No. As far as I can tell, singular "y'all", when it exists, is an implied plural. What you might hear as singular "y'all" is, say, when you go into a restaurant and say "do y'all have Coke?" to the server - that doesn't refer to just the server but to the restaurant as a whole. But I'm not a linguist and also I don't spend much time among people with heavier Southern dialect, so you shouldn't believe what I say.
I've had it explained to me as a western/eastern divide among southerners. As you head through Texas, more people think you need "all y'all" for plurals.
That's something those western southerners told me. I don't know if a linguist would agree, but that seems to be the understanding of some actual language users...
All I know is that there is a second boundary somewhere through TX, NM, and AZ, because I've never met a native Californian who would say "y'all" non ironically.
No, you've got it right. A lot of people trying to be cute and make southern language seem more alien than it is are over-"correcting."
When southern people say y'all to one person, they're really addressing you and your family (even though you might be the only one there.) If I ask "how y'all doing?" I want to know how you and yours are doing.
What's interesting is you may reply, "hey, how are you?", and lots of people may be satisfied with that. Neither party actually answers how they are, yet the handshake is complete.
I'm only familiar with Android, and it bothers me that I cannot exert complete sandbox control over every app.
I think I should be able to completely cut it off from the network and/or local storage; prevent it from running even though it is installed; and prevent it from having any personalizing information about me, my movements, my network connectivity status or patterns, my device usage (i.e. screen on versus locked, any proxy like battery state of charge), etc.
I am very reluctant to install apps because I see that the platform is designed for needs and a mindset that is not my own. I do not see it as essential or preferable that an app be able to monetize my usage or really gather any telemetry at all.
In terms of the usual data collection, I'm very happy with TrackerControl[0]. It's basically meant to run as an always on VPN (it isn't one) which allows it to block ads, social media, trackers, etc with quite reasonable granularity. I'm surprised at the amount of apps that fail to work correctly unless they have access to their data harvesting endpoints.
In terms for pure access to the data/permissions, GrapheneOS seems to be the main (only?) choice. The default permissions apps get in current day Android allow to group activities and tie them to a single user across apps/sites.
People understand hierarchy. That named file is in a folder in a particular drawer of a particular cabinet in a particular room of a particular building in a particular neighborhood in a...
What some people struggle with is recursive hierarchy where each step doesn't change the kind of container. I guess they never saw a Matryoshka doll when they were little.
Ha, I remember this religious debate all the way back in the days of text-mode word processing in the 80s on CP/M and PC. I was indoctrinated in the WordStar camp where style controls were visible in the editor between actual text characters, so you could move the cursor between them and easily decide to insert text inside or outside the styled region. This will forever seem a more coherent editing UI to me.
This might be why I also liked LaTeX. The markup itself is semantic and meant to help me understand what I am editing. It isn't just some keyboard-shortcut to inject a styling command. It is part of the document structure.
Heh, I'm not even sure WordStart other styles at that level. Changing the color back then would mean having the print job pause and the screen prompt you to change ink ribbon and press a key to continue. I can't remember if it could also prompt to change the daisy wheel, or whether font was a global property of the document. The daisy wheels did have a slant/italic set, so it could select those alternate glyphs on the fly from the same wheel. Bold and underline were done by composition, using overstrike, rather than separate glyphs.
But yeah, this tension you are describing is also where other concepts like "paragraph styles" bothered me in later editors. I think I want/expect "span styles" so it is always a container of characters with a semantic label, which I could then adjust later in the definitions.
Decades later, it still repulses me how the paragraph styles devolve into a bunch of undisciplined characters with custom styling when I have to work on shared documents. At some point, the only sane recourse is to strip all custom styling and then go back and selectively apply things like emphasis again, hoping you didn't miss any.
And... I preferred WordPerfect's separate "reveal codes" pane, which reduced the opportunity for ambiguity. WP 5.1 has never been equalled as a general-purpose word processor.
The brief directly cites some of the compliance frameworks which have supply chain risk controls in them.
This topic is kind of fascinating though. Considering the mindset from the Reflections on Trusting Trust paper, I do wonder how you bootstrap an assured supply chain like this. I know verification of chips and designs has been an active research area. But is there any formal solution to the larger problem of all the transitive dependencies of design and control of production?
How do you get there if you weren't already doing it from the start? It isn't just the chain of custody of the new chip that comes out. What about all the chips used in the production process and in the chain-of-custody tracking process? What about the chain of custody of all the design and process control artifacts that influenced the implementation of these processes? And the chips used to develop and manage those artifacts...
It feels like it most likely is a "turtles all the way down" kind of myth. Eventually, do you just give up and hope your layers of compliance frameworks have produced some kind of defense in depth cocoon?
I'm not sure it is even all that asymmetric. Do all the layers of compliance ritual disrupt the attacker more aggressively than it disrupts the desired production? There is a strong whiff of regulatory capture to these compliance frameworks, making it hard to divine how much it really blocks attackers versus upstart competitors...
In the case of the US, they've been maintaining assured supply chains fully sourced in the US for several decades so they've been able to bootstrap it. It is one of the reasons a domestic manufacturer exists for every kind of computing even though most has moved to Asia. It isn't a coincidence, for example, that Micron is based in Idaho.
Bootstrapping that from scratch today would be slow. The more feasible path is to use an existing assured supply chain to bootstrap initial capability and then swap out those bits with your own.
There’s a role for humans vis-à-vis accountability. Simply recording whose head goes on a pike for every step if something going wrong can be effective too.
I think normal virtualization approaches are far more power efficient, at a fleet level, than any kind of cluster of laptop scenarios. You can pile in the cores and amortize the costs of memory controllers etc. over a large set of guests.
It is a funny way to get features of both worlds. One reason to want colo (rather than VMs) is for predictability, but laptops still give you the funny throughput problems, because of thermal throttling instead of competing guests.
reply