https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-tria...

Why would so many academics / industry leaders sign their name to what amounts of marketing fluff?

He did not. Maybe "on paper" in a very specific way you could say that, but that ignores everything else like how he had very, very rich parents and connections. His very first company, Zip2, had his father as the first investor like come on.

He would have had to try NOT to fall into money.

> from that became the world's richest man through transforming electric cars and rocketry

Tesla existed before Musk. He provided investor money then a couple of years later lead the charge to unseat the founder as CEO which eventually led him to becoming CEO. Up until about 2016, Tesla would have gone bankrupt without government assistance, and they have an entire management team that deals with the day-to-day as well as managing Musk.

For SpaceX Musk did found the company but it was essentially engineered by the CTO down. Musk isn't out here making rockets himself.

Now that him and his yes men are running twitter, you're seeing his true management style in action. This kind of stuff has been said / reported about him for decades. I knew multiple people who worked at Tesla and all of them quit without a year and just talked about how terrible it was (especially the multiple times when they found out they were delivering things they had never discussed and hearing it first from Musk when he said it in public / social media).

He's not going to see your posts, bro.

He's always been pretty bad a managing a business, too. This is why he doesn't actually run any of them. You'll notice SpaceX and Tesla both have adults in charge.

It's always surprising to me when people think he's amazing when really, he has a lot of money and people get paid to manage him_ inside of his companies. Twitter just showed what it looks like when Musk tries to manage things himself.

A year from now nvidia will have new GPUs and the 3000 series will be relatively easy to buy.

Any recommendations?

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.

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.

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.

This shouldn't be on the frontpage of HN. If anything, Clang should take this down or revise it.

I'd like to see some clarification :)

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?

I wish it was more clear.

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.

Joint motion: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070...

Directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02...

The legal requirements to collecting money on defense contracts pretty much always does this.

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.

I'd love to see some data on FOSS usage across the DoD but that type of audit is likely impossible.

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.