Hmmm I believe Apple must have datacenter full of m1 powered machines for their CI/CD farm. Sending individual devices to individual developers working for n projects might be complicated, however offering a CI/CD environment to projects with ssh access to test virtual machines shouldn't be too complicated for them provided they were ideologically willing to help and cooperate the open source world.
Assuming they do proper due diligence and third party tracking just search the database for the ten libraries they use in the most places themselves ... and yes, that will need some time to coordinate, for identifying the right people in the open source project. But as they certainly depend on quite a few good relations is also in their interest to deal with security issues.
Curl ships preinstalled on macOS, supporting such preinstalled tools would be a good start (I would hope that Apple has a list somewhere of all the OSS tools they are shipping with macOS).
Yeah my guess is they just don’t have a process for this. Sure, sending a MacBook to the devs of curl probably makes sense and costs virtually nothing. But everyone writing open source is going to want one next so you need some full process to approve requests.
What a pointless article. Any car that needs a $10k battery is going to be more expensive than an ICE vehicle. You’ll save money most of the time over the life of the vehicle in the form of lower fuel and maintenance costs. Once again Americans get stuck on the upfront cost, not the total cost of ownership.
At this point I have to wonder what the motivation of articles like these are and how much money is behind them.
> You’ll save money most of the time over the life of the vehicle in the form of lower fuel and maintenance costs.
In theory, this is true. In practice, Teslas are very expensive to repair, don't have a very good reliability track record, and there isn't the secondary market yet for independent mechanics and part suppliers to be able to challenge factory repair costs. This is why Tesla sets aside roughly the same amount for warranty reserves as their competitors, meaning they expect to spend the same amount per year doing repairs on their cars as do the ICE makers.
Really the auto industry itself is making the cars unappealing by locking things down with DRM and trying to change the ownership model of cars, even being able to block you from starting the car remotely. So we have propriety charging stations that are owned by the automaker, a repair ecosystem controlled by the automaker, and powerful software in complete control of every aspect of the car communicating constantly with the automaker. In that type of environment, expect to get milked constantly regardless of the theoretical advantages EVs have in terms of cost. A truly open platform electric car -- one that is highly modifiable and customizable and mechanically much less complex -- that's a DIY/hobbyists' dream, and it should have much lower maintenance costs.
My son is looking at getting his first car, he wants a "classic car" but given upstate NY winters I think we are going to add whatever economy car we can find to the motor pool at the farm.
He absolutely hates the idea of a "connected car" and if affordable electric cars are glorified cell phones he is going to stick with old gas cars.
What happens if we don't "fund the internet"? What if we let projects with genuine usefulness flourish on their own, being funded directly by those who want them to exist, and we let the advertisement-funded internet fall by its own weight?
Just like advertisement tricks you into buying things you don't need, the advertisement-funded internet tricks you into paying attention to things you don't care about. We're better off without.
Please elaborate? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
My perspective is that advertising sets a perverse incentive to create content that is indexable and clickable (machine-translated Stack Overflow answers, recipes with twelve paragraphs of backstory, fake download links for the latest Marvel movie) instead of content that is valuable.
While I would agree that advertising can result in distorted priorities it isn't inherently evil. We used to have an internet with both ads and rational incentives. Even then the value of the internet service could not cover itself without advertising.
The main point though was that the cost of the internet is a mix of direct and indirect cost. I seriously doubt there will be enough people willing into incur the direct cost for modern services at a level that will co er those indirect cost incurred by the network and content providers.
While an ad free internet sounds great it isn't very practical or necessary. The answer is on the user end rather than the provider end though. Stop rewarding the perverse incentives instead of pretending we can wish them away.
> I'll share some things with you, the market is totally unpredictable right now. Even with some projected wins, we don't know what a new/mixed US Administration will mean.
How does what the US admin look like impact your business? Do you provide services to the government?
