rainsford
Although in reality it probably doesn't make sense to talk about the private sector as some homogeneous representation of the rest of society in the first place. Many people outside of academia famously struggle to adapt their presumably well developed "wider life skills" to significantly different environments, like switching industries or going between large companies and small ones. There's really no universally applicable life skills or experience that everyone except academics pick up.
Obviously being a truck driver is different than being a physics professor. But I'm not sure there is much of a coherent argument supporting the idea that the former exists in the real world while the latter does not.
Notably several entries on your list are companies that were founded and grew successful before moving to the locations you listed, often for tax breaks and/or to fit the politics of the company executives. Aside from Dell, all the companies you listed as being located in Texas became successful elsewhere first. Texas has proved it can lure in already successful companies more than it has demonstrated it can grow them.
Which is itself a legitimate achievement, but if the question is how you grow new successful tech companies, it's not a super useful data point especially if we're taking about different countries. There are relatively few barriers for a company that grew up and became successful in the environment of Silicon Valley to move to Austin with the promise of lower taxes, but Europe can't quite replicate that same migratory model to grown their own tech industry.
I've used them a lot and have found them very responsive with none of the Airbnb type horror stories. For vacations where you want a house instead of a hotel room, companies like this are a VAST improvement over Airbnb because they offer the type of local service that Airbnb will never be able to do at scale.
Of course 99% of EV drivers want another EV as their next car, since they're the people who presumably figured out that an EV would fit their needs. I'd be curious what the statistic would be if you gave everyone and EV and asked if their next car purchase would also be an EV. I bet it wouldn't be anywhere close to 99%.
If you want to expand EV market share, which I do, maybe spend more time figuring out how to make EVs work for more use-cases and less time assuming people who don't buy them are just dumb.
In fact if you believe democracy is the superior system of government, it's arguably even more embarrassing that an authoritarian single party state run by billionaire communists is somehow doing a better job as a technologically advanced civilization that a lot of democracies.
Ultimately it doesn't really matter though. The future will at least temporarily belong to those who get there first, regardless of their system of government or other issues. If other countries don't want China to own the 21st century, they should act like it.
The article references this as "YoloMAC" with a link to a pretty good Trail of Bits blogpost about it. But the TLDR is that just prepending the key to the message can lead to ambiguous encoding problems, so you still need to add extra complexity to your hand rolled keyed hash to handle things that the underlying hash primitive isn't going to protect you from on it's own. You're better off using a non-hand-rolled construction that protects against all the things including length extension.
The original idea of these certs, that they're very valuable long-lived secrets that have to be carefully hand managed and protected, while simultaneously being accessible to your active infrastructure, was always going to be too brittle. The idea of short-lived secrets that are regularly reissued allows for much more robust validation and less catastrophic failure modes.
I'm generally not dogmatic about this kind of thing and think there are often multiple right answers. But short-lived webpki certs are one of those things where if people don't see the value, I'm convinced they're not thinking about security correctly.
An attacker who manages to get a cert provider to mint a new certificate for your domain might be able to appear legitimate, but remember that it's a new cert, not an identical one to the cert you already have. You as the domain owner can easily detect this new cert was created using CT logs and visitors to your site can potentially detect two certs for the same domain depending on whether the attacker can convince them to only visit the spoofed site. Short lived certificates also mean the attacker must execute their new cert attack frequently if they want longer term success.
On the other hand, an attacker who manages to penetrate your impenetrable personal cert management security measures now has the real cert they can use to pretend to be you for as long as your certificate is good for. And unless you detected their one-time break-in, there is no way for you or anyone else to tell this is happening since the attacker is using a cert that matches the real one byte for byte.
Edit: I forgot to mention that short-lived certs are also a response to the general challenge with certificate revocation mechanisms as a reliable way to respond to the unlikely event that you actually detected your long-lived cert was stolen. Even if you figured out an attacker stole your certificate, convincing users to not keep treating it as valid has a lot of interesting failure edge cases. You might just have to wait for its validity period to expire.
Sometimes changes really are bad and are reverted, but more often the changes eventually get accepted and years later everyone involved treats it as an integral part of the sport.
Even "serious fans" almost always seem to be biased by the state of the sport when they started watching. Every change since that point is horrible and misguided, but they rarely argue for reverting changes that happened before then.
The math the person you're replying to was talking about was solar power vs ethanol. While your 800 m^2 sounds like a lot of land area for enough solar panels to fully charge a large electric truck, it's basically nothing compared to how much land area you'd need to grown enough corn to produce enough ethanol to power a similar truck. It's about 500 times as much land area, a fairly obvious result when you consider you get solar power from the land basically every day and corn once a year. Growing plants for ethanol is dumb.
Of course the benefit of a combustion engine is that you don't need to grow corn to make ethanol for it, at least as long as you can get fossil fuels out of the ground and the enemy doesn't disrupt your supply chain for drilling and refining fuel oil. But that's irrelevant since that wasn't the land-use comparison the parent poster was making.
Maybe I'm using it wrong, or maybe the tooling around AI hasn't yet caught up to the capability of AI models. It feels somewhat wrong to me that the benefit any individual person gets from AI is derived from their own prompting rather than autonomous systems that run in the background for them. But either way, the massive investment in AI compute seems very disproportionate to the actual benefit the average person, or even a tech savvy person, is seeing day-to-day right now.
That said, I know a lot of people who have recently installed solar panels on their roof and it's increasingly worth it from a financial perspective. The other thing worth noting though is that while cool, rooftop solar really isn't the best approach to installing solar capacity compared to grid scale solar farms on land which also tends to be abundant in the US.
It's not like the current mix of electrical generation and fossil fuel distribution is some naturally occurring phenomenon or alien technology. It's an enormously complex and interdependent system we built. I'm pretty confident we can build new and different things.
If that was true we'd be getting closer to a point where you could mention "X" without having to further specify what you're talking about, which doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. Maybe more to the point, "Twitter" already had that instant association that Musk totally threw away.
But I actually think changing the branding of the platform was far less dumb than the related necessary changing of terminology associated with using the platform. Twitter managed to associate a unique word for posting on their platform, "tweet", that became widely used and an instantly recognizable reference to using their social media platform specifically even if you didn't mention their name. You could "post" any of a dozen places, you could only "tweet" on Twitter. That's the kind of branding that doesn't happen often and a company would kill for, and Musk threw it away in favor of the same "post" terminology that literally every competitor also uses.
Is that true locally though? Having a golf course nearby your home is better than the golf course just existing somewhere, at least if you play golf, but that is decidedly not true of data centers. You might benefit from at least some of them existing, but derive very little benefit from having one in your backyard and a lot of potential downsides.
That trend of the last several decades has been completely destroyed in the last year or so. Sure you can buy a new computer that might be slightly better than one a few years old, but it will be significantly more expensive to the point where an upgrade is almost certainly not worth it unless money is no object. Even replacing a computer from the pre-AI era would be virtually impossible at anywhere near what it cost you to buy it new unless it was verging on truly ancient by computer standards. Computers have always been a counterpoint to inflation everywhere else, but now that seems to be not only no longer true, but computer costs are inflating significantly worse than other goods.
I find myself increasingly in favor of the movement against data centers. Not because I think data centers are bad on their own, but because of the hording of computing resources they represent and the impact that has on people trying to buy any sort of computing device for their personal use. The PC I built 2 years ago is basically irreplaceable at anywhere near the price I paid for it. That's a truly unacceptable state of affairs in personal computing.
A username/password would be perfectly fine for my use-case as an individual user using Tailscale for my homelab and personal devices. But I suspect the majority of real paying customers don't want a separate authentication flow just for Tailscale and would rather use the SSO they already have. I have confidence Tailscale wouldn't half-ass usernames and passwords is they offered it even if it was mostly just for non-paying hobbyist users, but I'm also sort of glad I get to bucket my account security risk with the people paying their bills.
Building a data center near homes and running your incredibly loud gas turbine generators 24/7 for months, destroying the property values and quality of life for the people living there, is a giant middle finger to the community they've moved into. I'm not saying the backlash banning them entirely rather than adding some additional regulations is entirely logical, but it's very understandable. And should have been eminently predictable.