It's crazy how many adults think regulation is free, especially here. All consuming vague regulations like GDPR increase the cost of a startup by 500%. Europe should have just banned startups entirely. It would have the same effect.
Imagine being a college student with 240 hours and $1,000 to release an MVP over the summer. How long would it take to read GDPR yourself, 100 hours? How much would it cost to hire a lawyer verify that your startup meets GDPR guidelines, $5,000? It would be almost impossible for any young person to start a business. GDPR was obviously a failure from the start. Anyone who couldn't see that has a child's understanding of business. Grow up.
I would say it's a lot more than 500%. If your business is based on doing things that are illegal under GDPR then the cost of doing that startup is close to infinite. But that's kinda the point of GDPR.
This. Sure, it's X% more difficult to do Y in Europe, because Europe doesn't want you to do Y, either at all, or unless you clean up after yourself so the costs aren't just eaten up by the environment or whatever, or unless you do it without causing harm. That's not a problem. That's the system working as intended.
Sure, Europe doesn't have it's own Microsoft, probably because of regulations like this, but I don't want Europe to have its own Microsoft, because Microsoft, for the most part, sucks.
Europe does have Microsoft. Actually, it has Microsoft in almost every single respect except the primary beneficial ones: taxes, employment and oversight.
Europe having its own Microsoft might be better than Europe having to use the US one and sending it like $100/user/yr in whatever subscription they've tricked them into.
Europe doesn't have to use the US one. It's been the easier choice historically, but there's little beyond inertia forcing Europe to stick to Microsoft. Not that that inertia isn't nothing though.
There is also political lobby and even more importantly local businesses that are build around microsoft. From one person to huge companies all exist to support microsoft. It would be extremely costly to retrain/regear everyone involved. So the inertia is huge.
> That's not a problem. That's the system working as intended.
You really think that supra-national legislators regulating the fine-print of unfathomably complex systems manage to have everything working "as intended"?
Why do Draghi or the EC want to roll back this mess then, other than the evident loss of competitiveness respective of the blocs who did not do this? Was that intended or foreseen?
> You really think that supra-national legislators regulating the fine-print of unfathomably complex systems manage to have everything working "as intended"?
For values of, yes. Things obviously aren't perfect, but I at-least generally prefer them over their proposed alternatives. I find they have made things better.
> Why do Draghi or the EC want to roll back this mess then, other than the evident loss of competitiveness respective of the blocs who did not do this? Was that intended or foreseen?
From the article:
> Under intense pressure from industry and the US government,
I think that says what needs to be said. And my opinion is that they shouldn't yield to US government and industry interests, since they clearly aren't the same as European interests.
Draghi's recommendations to roll back regulations had nothing to do with purported special interests, but with his view that regulation was stifling European development. And he's as old guard Euro-establishment as they come.
I mean Europe doesn't really get to make the choices when it comes to the USA because of their hilarious practice of hamstringing themselves. If that was the goal it definitely worked.
I think what they mean is that what EU in general kinda knows that for various they won't be able to make their version of money machine big tech. So why not to try different path? The individual laws will always be flawed because there is huge pressure to make them flawed by corps and lobby that want's to exploit them.
But if you ask anyone in europe on the street they have no sympathy for big tech. If anything they want stronger GDPR and more of it.
AI isn't replacing jobs. AI spending isn't either. It's outsourcing and can be easily confirmed by cross-referencing H1B approval rates with layoffs.
If you've been outsourced, ask your representative to support the HIRE Act:
- Creates a 25% tax on outsourcing payments
- Creates a “Domestic Workforce Fund” for apprenticeships/workforce development.
- Prohibits companies from deducting outsourcing payments.
If we're hypothesizing, then the thin wrapper organizations should or would bear those same taxation and penalty costs when outsourcing and their prices would also be going up.
What would be the point? If the outsourced devs are based in another country and the thin wrapper shell company selling outsourced devs as a service are based in another country, the expenses to either are likely be to reported to the IRS and State governments identically.
Not so sure nowadays. Given how often big tech lays off employees and the abundance of recently laid off tech talent, trying to start your own company sounds a lot more appealing than ever.
I consider myself risk-averse and even I am contemplating starting a small business in the event I get laid off.
> trying to start your own company sounds a lot more appealing than ever.
It really isn't. Even if you get laid off from a large tech company, you probably didn't have to pay a cent to get the job there in the first place, and you started drawing a paycheck right away (after the initial delay due to the pay cycle). If you only work there for 6 months, you can save a really good amount of money if you have frugal habits.
Starting a company isn't nearly as easy, usually requires up-front investment, and there can be a long time before you generate any profit. Either you need some business idea that's going to generate profit (or at least enough revenue to give the founder(s) a paycheck), or a business loan or other funding, which means convincing someone to invest in your company somehow.
Starting your own company only sounds appealing if you ignore reality, or have the privilege of having plenty of cash saved up for such a venture.
If I was working a typical corp job, I would "quiet quit" and start using my excess savings to run small experiments. Maybe run like 3 in parallel a month and let them cook.
Example - start a niche blog based on my hobby, hire 3 writers and pay them up to $3k a month to write content for the blog. Let it cook for months. If it gets traffic, monetize with ads. If very profitable, quit job.
Starting an internet based business if fairly cheap nowadays, especially with cursor and ai.
Interesting. I think the same thing but I wonder if the market is not ready for products created by the big guys, what can I offer? Have you thought in that line?
You’re thinking about it wrong. Most large companies won’t put development time into an idea that would only make them $1-5M per year. On the other hand, $1-5M per year is great money to an individual. So there’s a lot of untouched markets that can make you rich but just don’t interest the big guys.
All of that said, there are a lot of products that are produced by large companies and are just bad. Don’t be afraid to go after a Goliath if you see an opportunity.
Well the whole point is that you have some edge that the "big guys" cannot compete with or you have discovered an opportunity they have not (making you ripe for acquisition).
New successful businesses are being created all the time. We just focus on the ones that have already been successful for a long time.
It's nice that Musk and his companies always seem to be willing to provide free emergency services. Over various disasters they've provided free energy, internet, and cell service.
I can't believe people complain about charity when so many other companies do nothing. Same with Mr.Beast's charity acts. There's something wrong with people who do nothing and hate on other people doing charity.
I think intention matters here. It’s great for those people who are helped by Mr. Beast, but it’s coming from a place of ego and profit, not charity. Happy for those helped, but it’s still a little unseemly.
However, I do think Musk genuinely likes to help people^ (e.g. Puerto Rico and Ukraine), but also I feel his response to the (valid) rejection of his help by the divers in Thailand was ungracious and maybe a little telling. Hopefully he’s grown since then
The nice thing about being a billionaire is that you can finally care about other things besides making more money. For a period of time, Musk was the richest man in the world. When they drop to second place or below, they have a tradition of saying “Thank you” to the person that surpassed them.
Where else was my comment posted? It's strange that it's still getting replies and likes.
> you can finally care about other things besides making more money
I think his 'philanthropic' efforts pre-date the point where he was the richest man in the world. But tbf, his philanthropy was always tied to promotion of his various enterprises (e.g., deploying free batteries, solar, satellite internet), so it can't be entirely disentangled from his business interests. In the counterfactual where he just had the shirt on his back, figuratively speaking, he wouldn't give it up for someone more in need.
By my measure, he isn't a giving person, but he's always on the search for win-wins. i.e., how can I help people, and grow my business, and build cool shit. Building cool shit is his core drive, and everything else is incidental. Which kind of explains bad business decisions like buying Twitter. Though he hasn't really done anything 'cool' with that – it's more just his curious plaything.
> He likes to help people if he can come out as a hero, otherwise you’re a "pedo"
I made reference to exactly this if you read carefully. I actually think this rejection is an inflection point in his behavior. He ought to have been more gracious and received the rejection without hurt to his ego (and reacting as he did). I think since then he’s wrongly viewed that event as ‘No good deed goes unpunished’ and become more and more defiant in his attitude.
> what would make you reconsider seeing him as a genuinely helpful person?
I don’t believe that people are immutably good or evil. Certainly I would regard him returning to a more ‘can-do’ and less combative role in society to be very ‘helpful’. He has a history of effectively marshaling resources towards difficult problems, he has a lot of capital at his disposal, and if he could return to doing that in a more egalitarian fashion he could literally change the world for the better. But first he’d have to put his ego in the back seat
> I made reference to exactly this if you read carefully. I actually think this rejection is an inflection point in his behavior. He ought to have been more gracious and received the rejection without hurt to his ego (and reacting as he did). I think since then he’s wrongly viewed that event as ‘No good deed goes unpunished’ and become more and more defiant in his attitude.
> I made reference to exactly this if you read carefully.
> Hopefully he’s grown since then
Elon Musk has been in the news pretty regularly between the Thai cave rescue and now. I am not sure how someone could have an opinion on the man that has somehow been suspended in time since 2018, but if you’re unaware of what he’s been up to since then here are some updates regarding his personal growth.
This makes sense. “Growth” can be skewed if you only look at a person’s words and actions. The side of the equation that we imagine in our minds has be weighed equally lest we take a combination of a person’s own words about their values and thoroughly documented and uncontested accounts from others as being somehow reflective of a person’s character.
> “Growth” can be skewed if you only look at a person’s words and actions
I guess my point is that his words and actions haven't been one sided. e.g., He assists Ukraine, but he also supports Trump who has implied he will withdraw US support and force a 'peace', which likely will be at the expense of Ukrainian territory and embolden Russia to make future incursions in neighboring countries. He kickstarted the battery and electric mobility revolution, but he isn't really that concerned about the environment or conservation. I'm sure there's plenty more contradictions, but I'm not inclined to take this discussion further.
I'm not sure what to make of all of this, and I don't think there's anyone who credibly has enough insight into his mind to say. But certainly, the links you provided describe his words and actions, I don't dispute that, however cherry picked they may be.
Exactly. If we simply imagine that a person’s actions contain contradictions then we can properly imbue them with a complex unknowability that elevates them from human to mythological enigma.
Where a simple mind might look at Musk and Russia and conclude “he supports Russia” based off his words and actions or similarly conclude that he has no interest in the environment or conservation based on the same process of observation, a wiser person makes the extra effort to reject coherence in order to become retroactively confused.
Everything you said is right. Everything I said is wrong. Wisdom can't beat Very Smart, so go give yourself a pat on the back for 'winning the argument' with your deep and canny observations. Maybe one day, you, too, will outgrow your gifted child persona. Hope springs eternal.
Also, crucially, Starlink has been proactive in trying to disconnect Russian operatives who have managed to attain a Starlink connection. All the same, Elon’s backing of Trump doesn’t bode well for a good outcome for Ukraine (nor other ex-USSR satellites that are feeling very nervous right now)
"causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened". Instead Elmo denied the fact russians had working terminals in the first place, and was later forced by State Dep to enact some measures. Those measures are still ineffective as evidenced by recent Starlink controlled Iranian Shahed drone sighting.
I misspoke. They've been very quick to react to Ukranian intel. If they were staffed, perhaps they'd have the capability to be proactive, but I can't necessarily say they would be motivated to, esp. when the military is doing that for them. And the Ukr. military are perhaps more effective because they know where their communication centers are supposed to be under the fog of war. That said, I'm only going on what has been said in public
Or put another way Musk is anti censorship, anti war in Ukraine, anti complying with the Harris/Biden agenda to deplatform political rivals such as they did 4 days after Biden took office, forcing Pre Musk Twitter/X and Facebook to do their bidding - or else. Turns out the ones squawking loudest about the other being a threat to democracy are in fact the ones actively working against our Constitutional Rights. And I’m a lifelong Democrat who changed to Indy and won’t support these clowns going forward. Wake up before the US is just like the UK and the police are at your door because of a post they disagree with - fuck the first amendment, right? Just like Harris and Walz just said, the first amendment doesn’t protect misinformation or hate speech… actually; it 100% does but the boomer news is gonna try to make us all believe more of their lies.
I can't agree more, I'm a black lifelong Democrat and I'm fed up with their lies. Nowadays I only get my information from Truth Social and I finally realized how evil Democrats are.
You made the above statement in response to one user, and then a different user replied who has a 9-month-old account and 1/3 of his comments include "Tesla":
You called it. The astroturfing is off the charts! And the user who replied to your comment pulled the "As a black man" routine just like the user you replied to. LOL.
Tesla doesn't even have a PR team because Musk is cheap and Musk totally pays me(a highly paid DevOps/SRE btw) to astroturf by offering me 7 figures! Please get a grip on reality.
Yes, it’s sad, but I guess it’s expected. Elon bought Twitter to have a propaganda platform, use it for himself, and sell disinformation-as-a-service. Why wouldn’t he pay for astroturfing on popular websites as well? A website like HN where you can find a lot of tech people and investors. It’s easy, it’s cheap, it’s mean. I see no reason he wouldn’t.
I've been a lifelong liberal and won't vote Democrat after seeing how SpaceX and Tesla are being treated by the liberal media, including the publishing of outright fake news by so called reputable outlets. I don't support Trump or Putin or dictators in general. If I vote Republican at some point it'd be an anti-Democrat vote.
Yeah right, but they get awarded plenty of contracts from NASA, which is a money flowing from a Democratic government to SpaceX. Call it what you will, but it doesn't sound like the actions of the government as an institution match up with this rhetoric that Democrat governance is hurtful to Elon's companies.
> really really hard to exclude Tesla
Whatever they really really did didn't actually matter in the end though did it? I'm sure if they tried really really really hard, they could have just stopped it outright with an executive order.
But really, it makes more sense for EV subsidies went towards companies in competition with the leader that doesn't really need it. More competitors means more jobs, and lower prices. Giving subsidies to the established leader (by a whopping large margin) isn't really doing anything useful.
Yeah right, but they get awarded plenty of contracts from NASA, which is a money flowing from a Democratic government to SpaceX. Call it what you will, but it doesn't sound like the actions of the government as an institution match up with this rhetoric that Democrat governance is hurtful to Elon's companies.
Biden held an EV summit in 2021 and didn't invite Tesla.
At the summit he called GM's CEO Mary Barra the pioneer of EVs when GM produced only 28 EVs that quarter and Tesla like 200K.
They also tried to make the EV subsidies not apply to Tesla.
On Reddit any positive news about SpaceX like the first private spacewalk is actively downvoted by democrats and liberals. And any negative news is hugely amplified whether true or not. Mods of large subreddits hand out permanent bans and remove posts if you comment against the narrative even when sourcing official SpaceX responses.
> On Reddit any positive news about SpaceX like the first private spacewalk is actively downvoted by democrats and liberals. And any negative news is hugely amplified whether true or not. Mods of large subreddits hand out permanent bans and remove posts if you comment against the narrative even when sourcing official SpaceX responses.
Looking at this thread, I'm seeing that it's the anti-Elon commenters that have been downvoted, flagged, and silenced. And instead there seems to be a lot of conspicuously biased anti-Democrat Elon supporters who seem untarnished. So I'm not buying these claims of persecution.
As for your claims around subsidies, see my responses to the sibling comments – assuming your not a bot.
> I can't believe people complain about charity when so many other companies do nothing.
It is possible that people are interpreting this 30 day promotional period as “Starlink offers hurricane survivors $120/mo internet access starting November 2nd”, which would not be factually inaccurate assuming today as the start date of the promotion. $120/mo is roughly double the average broadband cost in e.g. the Asheville area.
Dell is working pretty hard to replace IPMI with Redfish these days. Redfish is an out of band management protocol like IPMI, but using an HTTP/JSON REST API that doesn't assume a secure management network.
OpenStack Ironic (ironicbaremetal.org) now ships a redfish driver that we have tested working on:
- Dell machines
- HPE machines (ilo 5 and 6)
- SuperMicro
- Most generic redfish endpoints as deployed by bulk "off label" server places
A lot of folks in the provisioning automation space worked hard to try and enhance the state of the art (including some folks at Dell who were great :D) and get redfish accepted.
It's a bit weird seeing this post; from our perspective, IPMI is a dangerous, attractive nuisance: it's nearly impossible to properly secure and has a lot more bad failure scenarios than a protocol built on http, that most of the time can support TLS with custom CAs and similar.
People should be suspicious of statements regardless of tone. Conmen, hackers, cult members, job applicants, and AIs are all trying to trick people who only listen to tone.
It's also not really necessary a lot of the time. If some random person online confidently says that the newest tesla uses an engine which contains ball bearings made in Indonesia by child slaves, I don't have to spend the time to doubt and analyze that because it doesn't impact me personally. I'd only ever need to take the time to double check that if I were going to buy a tesla or before I went and spread that information around as if it were fact. How true or false it is doesn't affect my life in any way. It can just be something a random person said online and I can treat it as such.
Whenever you see information that sounds like it could be extremely important to you and your situation (and when being wrong could really hurt you) then no matter how authoritatively the information was delivered that's really when you should invest the time to verify it. Much of the time that investment is just a quick internet search anyway.
Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, we could not afford to vanquish all of the antiques in the architecture. We do have an infinite spell of Ben Gay, however....
As with many things, it becomes easier with practise. Also, you can pace accordingly: do I quickly read 10 articles today, or pick 2 and peruse them in depth?
The mainboard on my Framework died, randomly. They replaced it, (almost) no questions asked. Shipped me a replacement, and I was able to replace it myself in fifteen minutes.
Speak with your dollars. Even though I was unhappy that the device was broken, my next laptop will probably be a framework. Although I would love if they started selling replacement chassis, mine is bent (that was my own fault).
Which part of your chassis is bent? They sell both top[0] and bottom[1] cover portions, as well as the input cover[2], which I think covers all the chassis
Race to the bottom. No reputation of quality => can’t raise price => cutting costs beyond the red line => mishaps => no reputation of quality => …
Cf Apple who charge an arm and a leg for anything above the base config (which admittedly is tight but still usable) because people trust them to not pull such dumb moves.
They really do for extras. The base config is IMHO on the contrary best price/experience ratio available on the market even including the subpar macOS.
I've worked with many engineers from HP. They were NOT incompetent. What they did describe though was a culture of firefighting and micromanagement complaining there was no opportunity to drive systemic improvement.
Lack of adequate testing probably due to rushed schedules, insufficient infrastructure, and perhaps poor release practices because management celebrates firefighting as it's the easiest way to show "business impact."
You can even wipe the entire SSD on a mac and STILL you have the ability to reinstall macOS without putting in any disc or USB stick. It's just always there waiting
This is almost correct. For the new Apple silicon machines you do need a second working Apple computer and cable in order to do a DFU if you completely wipe the SSD.
You can also waltz into an Apple store to have it done if you don’t have access to any other machines.
Imagine being a college student with 240 hours and $1,000 to release an MVP over the summer. How long would it take to read GDPR yourself, 100 hours? How much would it cost to hire a lawyer verify that your startup meets GDPR guidelines, $5,000? It would be almost impossible for any young person to start a business. GDPR was obviously a failure from the start. Anyone who couldn't see that has a child's understanding of business. Grow up.