Considering that everything I have personal knowledge of here is obviously bunk, best ignore the rest of it too

So, what TSRs would do is overwrite one or more interrupts to point to a routine that would check if the system call in question was one it wanted to handle (eg, to add a hotkey it would grab the keyboard handler and check for a special set of keys before passing control back to the normal handler). Once that was fine, it would call the TSR system call and control would be passed back to the OS with the hook still in place

I kid, of course, but "X is x + 5" brings Prolog to mind with all the unification and bidirectionality that implies.

Legally speaking, the Southern District of New York can say whatever it likes, and Libera, Sweden, India, St-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Greenland, Switzerland, Pakistan, Grenada, and the British Virgin Islands are free to ignore what the US says. They all have national sovereignty over their respective ccTLDs, and of them, most are not going to simply accept the US telling them what to do considering recent geopolitical missteps.

Source: I'm on the board of dotMeow and wrote the financial plan

It's quite late here in Belgium, so I'm about to go to sleep, but in the morning, I'll happily answer any questions people have about the project.

It turns out that when everybody involved is some level of techie and you're targeting a sort of "corporate bland" tone so that you look professional and trustworthy by modeling your communications on other successful kickstarters, it comes out looking similar to what other marketing copy looks like, which is precisely what all of the LLMs were trained on.

Perhaps the solution is to make the spec open but make using the trademark contingent on certification (much like USB, for example)

I recommend actually reading X.200 (the specification of the OSI model) at some point: it's quite approachable (especially for an ITU spec, which are notoriously dense reading), and will quickly make you realize how silly it is that we still use it as a reference for modern stacks.

In practice, there are two situations where cloud makes sense:

1. You infrequently need to handle traffic that unpredictably bursts to a large multiple of your baseline. (Consider: you can over provision your baseline infrastructure by an order of magnitude before you reach cloud costs) 2. Your organization is dysfunctional in a way that makes provisioning resources extremely difficult but cloud can provide an end run around that dysfunction.

Note that both situations are quite rare. most industries that handle that sort of large burst are very predictable: event management know when a client will be large and provision ticket sales infra accordingly, e-commerce knows when the big sale days will be, and so on. In the second case, whatever organizational dysfunction caused the cloud to be appealing will likely wrap itself around the cloud initiative as well.

X.400 was a nice idea, but the ideal of having a single global directory predates security. I can understand why it never happened

On X.509, the spec spends two chapters on attribute certificates, which I've never seen used in the wild. It's a shame; identity certificates do a terrible job at authentication

There's a separate term for the bits of the OSI model that are actually relevant; it's called the IETF model.