That's how my devices are configured, and it's amazing - if I need to travel for work, I just pick up my laptop and go. NixOS makes sure the system itself is identical (apps, most of the code configs, etc), then any app-spcific config is handled by Syncthing. It was really magical the first few times I used my laptop on the road!

Also, if you aren't already across it, you should look into remote builds/deployments. Basically, the regular nixos-rebuild command supports deploying over SSH. It's nice because you can do the heavy work (nix evaluation, building non-cached packages, etc) on your grunty workstation, then have them pushed across to the laptop via SSH. Then, when you want to apply that build to your PC, it'll be super fast (since everything is already evaluated & built!).

I do agree with your point too: perhaps emotional stimulation is also important? That can be a lot less sharp, less well-defined, but just as enriching.

It sounds like GP has very high standards for their friends, which is not the point IMO. I think we should have friends to broaden our horizons and expose us to new things. Intelligence is only one part of that.

What happens then if the AI bubble crashes? Nvidia has given up their dominant position in the gaming market and made room for competitors to eat some (most?) of their pie, possibly even created an ultra-rare opportunity for a new competitor to pop up. That seems like a very short-sighted decision.

I think that we will instead see Nvidia abusing their dominant position to re-allocate DRAM away from gaming, as a sector-wide thing. They'll reduce gaming GPU production while simultaneously trying to prevent AMD or Intel from ramping up their own production.

It makes sense for them to retain their huge gaming GPU market share, because it's excellent insurance against an AI bust.

Because each of our servers are bespoke, we can use the admin provisioner when the server is first being set up (and actually, Ansible handles this part).

I don't have experience with it, but StepCA also has Kubernetes support, and I imagine the control plane could authenticate the pod when a cert needs to be issued or renewed.

Avoiding Trust on First Use is potentially a big benefit, but the workflow improvements for developers, and especially non-technical people, is a huge win too.

At work, we switched to Step CA [1] about 2 years ago. The workflow for our developers looks like:

  1. `ssh client-hosts-01`

  2. Browser window opens prompting for AzureAD login

  3. SSH connection is accepted

In the background, we're using `@cert-authority` for host cert verification. A list of "allowed principals" is embedded in the users' cert, which are checked against the hosts' authorized_principals [2] file, so we have total control over who can access which hosts (we're doing this through Azure security groups, so it's all managed at our Azure portal). The generated user cert lasts for 24 hours, so we have some protection against stolen laptops. And finally, the keys are stored in `ssh-agent`, so they work seamlessly with any app that supports `ssh-agent` (either the new Windows named pipe style, or "pageant" style via winssh-pageant [3]) - for us, that means VSCode, DBeaver, and GitLab all work nicely.

My personal wishlist addition for GitHub: Support for `@cert-authority` as an alternative to SSH/GPG keys. That would effectively allow us to delegate access control to our own CA, independent of GitHub.

[1] https://smallstep.com/docs/step-ca

[2] https://man.openbsd.org/sshd_config#AuthorizedPrincipalsFile

[3] https://github.com/ndbeals/winssh-pageant

The answer is "not yet". But, some of their LLVM PR's were accepted recently, which is a big milestone!

Granted, we should remember that those 900 pages include base details that, probably, CSA are not planning to change in the foreseeable future. They need to be very thorough.

To answer your real question: device manufacturers will likely use the Matter SDK. It would be a huge undertaking for a smart-light manufacturer to re-write all of that code from scratch!

For example, the value of a degree from MIT is not just the degree itself, but also quality and depth of the course work. We assume that if a student passed with A+ grades, they have a solid understanding. But we also know that, i.e., MIT teaches CS in a way that's very applicable to the CS industry, including many bits of non-standard knowledge that are not tested in the exam.

Imagine that MIT decides to become a degree-granting institution, and I obtain an "MIT CS Degree". How would an employer know whether I learned at a top-quality education provider and gained deep knowledge that covers more than the exam ever could -- or if I self-taught and scraped through the exam with the bare minimum knowledge.

I guess MIT could structure their exams so that they cover the subject deeply, but to cover 2 years worth of intense learning, surely they would need a very long (maybe impractically long) exam period?

Maybe I'm over-thinking this - I guess an MIT student would list on their CV "2 years studying at MIT".

Anyway, I think this is a fantastic idea and I'm very interested to see what other HN users think!