It's actually the Western approach that is logically more sustainable, modulo global warming impacts. So it's odd to say that selling what people actually want to buy right now is "dooming them to irrelevance." The Guardian and the people it quotes are actualy saying "car buyers are wrong" but by way of blaming the companies responding to their signals. In the absence of, say, a carbon tax, what they are doing is highly relevant.

Fracking led the U.S. to be a net oil exporter, meanwhile EVs have infrastructure costs Western governemnts are not prepared to subsidize any further. Those charging stations can easily cost $50k to install. The batteries are not cheap or easy to make, and the low price of Chinese vehicles is down to heavy subsidies, and much of Western demand was also propped up by subsidies that have been going away. Gas stations are built out, ICs are well understood. Yes the Iran situation has pushed up prices but that doesn't mean they'll stay high long term.

There is very little evidence the market actually wants EVs. They are nice to drive, probably net better for the environment and our health, long term will likely "win," but none of that makes them "relevant" today or ICs "irrelevant."

The world is flawed and imperfect and perfect things don't really emerge from it. Harvard is glorious. Our best and oldest (in the US) university is bad because it's not sufficiently egalitarian, and let's destroy it? It's an engine for our society and other universities have followed in its footsteps. Stanford, Caltech, Rice, Berkeley, the Claremont schools, etc etc - none of these were in the original ivy league, all are imperfect to some extent in their admissions and embrace and fulfillment of egalitarian ideals. They are also glorious though. They make our country a dynamic, innovative, intellectually vibrant place and attract students from around the world. They absolutely are key to our (staggering) economic and cultural success (in the US).

Elite clubbiness is an unfortunate side effect of success, but it doesn't mean we should then intentionally obliterate the engine of that success out of distaste for the cose of it.

> cheaper real estate presents an opportunity for employers with vision

On top of any deterioration in office rents, companies need way less space than they used to since people are working from home many days. This opens up many possibilities that will IMO keep offices in prime markets filled:

-companies take more space per person in office for same cost, providing desks

-companies that couldn’t afford prime markets move in and use them as mainly collaboration spaces (“let’s all work out of Manhattan next week while we finish this project”)

-companies downsize in prime markets but reorient toward specific events - brainstorming, project closings, strategy retreats, get to know each other, cross department workshopping etc etc

No organization I am part of will ever do business with you if I can stop it.

You fought for Turing but I suppose the Uyghur concentration camps mean nothing to you. They are not British so how could their lives be worth fighting for when there is money to be made (for yourself) without regard to morality or any sense of decency.

But good job doing Cloudflare PR.

I am not saying this makes Linux bad. What I am saying is, making it easier to charge for software is not going to “spoil” Linux with commercial parasites. If anything, paid software could help undermine the surveillance economy by providing a more direct way to support the creation of good software that doesn’t spy on you, like the default Google Android apps or the Google web apps many people use on Linux desktops. All that stuff is commercial too, you just don’t pay for it in money, and maybe the source code is open, but you darn sure pay with your personal data.

You can read about this any number of places including https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/ch...

Anyway, regardless of your personal definition of the term, the intent of communication of the person you are replying to is crystal clear and in obvious contradiction to your analysis. (That person expressly uses the word “federal.”)

I still remember CPAN perldocs as a high water mark for docs. They had specific sections for examples, starting with the summary at the top, and another for proper reference. And more importantly a strong culture of good docs. The examples tended to be close to comprehensive, progressing from simple to complicated problems. Then there would be a rundown of arguments and return values for the key methods.

It's just not true that the federal government spends more on education than defense, in fact it's very lopsided in the other direction.

The context is a thread on the federal income tax specifically, and someone said the federal govt used to be not very technologically ambitious, and someone else says, essentially, it still isn't technologically ambitious, it spends most of its money on education and social welfare. OP corrected that. The social welfare part has some validity but federal education spending is quite minor.

Yes the total spending by all govts in the US including state + local has a lot more education spending but the thread and the whole article are focused on federal taxes.

“ An implementation that does this ships with NetBSD, allowing the NetBSD drivers to be run in NetBSD userspace… The first major PCI driver developed was the In- tel Centrino 7260 driver developed for NetBSD and OpenBSD by Antti Kantee. The commit message said “This is probably the world’s first Canadian cross device driver: it was created for OpenBSD by writing and port- ing a NetBSD driver which was developed in a rump ker- nel in Linux userspace.”[13]

Further, just another example, from page 149 in the dissertation is an extended many page discussion of how the rump kernel was used to provide usb support in netbsd.

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2012/isbn9789526049175/isbn9789526049...

“ We implemented a host controller called ugenhc. When the kernel’s device autocon- figuration subsystem calls the ugenhc driver to probe the device, the ugenhc driver tries to open /dev/ugen on the host. If the open is successful, the host kernel has attached a device to the respective ugen instance and ugenhc can return a successful match. Next, the ugenhc driver is attached in the rump kernel, along with a USB bus and a USB root hub. The root hub driver explores the bus to see which devices are connected to it, causing the probes to be delivered first to ugenhc and through /dev/ugen to the host kernel and finally to the actual hardware. Figure 3.24 con- tains a “dmesg” of a server with four ugenhc devices configured and one USB mass media attached.”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/justin/2015_Asi...

“ The rump kernel has been used as a way to supply device drivers in other new operating systems, which do not yet have a full set of device drivers. For example, Genode[4] is a framework for building microkernel operating sys- tems using the L4 family of microkernels. Genode uses the rump kernel to provide file system support, so that it does not have to develop its own file systems.”

Here’s a 362 page dissertation on rump kernels which has a netbsd focus:

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2012/isbn9789526049175/isbn9789526049...

There’s also the Wikipedia entry.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rump_kernel

So does Apple.

EDIT: some people don’t like that answer, but “inspecting” in this context clearly means “digitally inspecting” (Google does not physically look at every file) and Apple does this with files that are uploaded. They do it in device, but it’s still inspected. That’s the whole point of this controversy, that there’s not much difference to people WHERE apple inspects and on device is actually arguably worse. Your sentence does not in any way distinguish what Apple does from what others do.