Eventually Tesla turned a profit. They too didn't initially make enough money to offset startup costs, but eventually those costs got covered.

Ford is both dealing with legitimate startup costs and perhaps engaging in Hollywood accounting to shuffle expense where it signs to their financial strategies (maybe tax breaks on losses related to electrification or something, or bundling broader expense problems together under an understandable silo). As the supply chain stabilizes and the fixed costs are already incurred, I fully anticipate Ford will become profitable in that endeavor.

It doesn't even have a unit cost of 130k to produce, so it's disingenuous to claim each car sold costs then more.

While a transcript would be nice, I'm wagering they are going to be giving a synopsis. The purpose of a report is to have a digestable account of the events, and a transcript is unlikely to be ready to follow.

So many posts are clearly marketing campaigns, not sure that AI is needed to make it much worse.

I meant that the wider market. Even if Apple's strategy isn't going to be profitable, a subset of Meta's efforts can be (the devices can be profitable, but they spent way too much money on certain projects that will not pan out).

Apple may make a return to the market with an amended product that fit the business case.

There's a market, it's viable, but it's not set the world on fire. Apple's device aimed for a market that seemingly wasn't there (too expensive particularly for an unproven ecosystem). But other devices have done well enough to have a business justification.

KDE has been in Fedora a while, a lot of Fedora gets dropped on the way to RHEL. Fedora 34 would become RHEL9, and dropped KDE on the way.

I suppose I don't know the particulars of this protest, but *most* protests I see aren't standing up for Hamas but pointing out the broader treatment of Palestinians, whether it's as collateral damage in Gaza or continuing behavior in the West Bank, which is widely recognized as wrong by the UN/ICC/EU/various nations.

Broadly speaking, the muslims I have known personally are good folk. Extremists under any religious cover misbehave similar, though admittedly some Islamic extremists have more formally recognized power than is typical, but as it stands none of this is in evidence in the West Bank. Gaza may be more tricky by virtue Hamas, but most major powers have expressed a belief that Israel could have been more surgical but are instead inflicted way more collateral damage than should be acceptable.

apartheid:
  a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

Seems like walling off Palestinians would be consistent. Also, you have the West Bank situation, which the ICC/UN, France, UK, EU, and US have all described as a war crime (US temporarily said it wasn't, but switched back in February). In Gaza the objection is the disproportionate response, even though the settlements did stop, but the West Bank still suffers from the settlements and associated forced transfer of property away from Palestinians.

Just because they should realistically expect to put their job at risk doesn't mean they did the "wrong thing". The "disturb the peace" line as a reaction to the concept of protest is a bit disconcerting.

Now if they were being obnoxious in the workspace chanting about injustice against palestine in some totally unrelated venue (e.g. if Google did zero business with Israeli government), I could see scoffing at the effort as noisy and disruptive to no end.

However, they are directly protesting their own companies behavior. Disruptively protesting in the workplace is pretty much exactly what their cause demands in this scenario.

I have grown tired of "there's no wrong way to protest" being spouted when people do incredibly stupid, unjust, or self-harm stuff in the name of "protest", but here it's supremely on point. Then I still see people with "protest somewhere quietly that no one has to hear", which closes off *any* form of protest and demands deference to some folks.

I can only speculate, but:
-I had heard that the IBM PC effort wasn't exactly fully supported by the wider IBM, so they had to make do and potentially might have had to be willfully overly optimistic to rationalize their plan to have so much of the system defined by freely implementable standards
-They might have hubris that BIOS was 'hard', at least the business leadership I could easily imagine thinking that, and no one is going to second guess them.
-They might have assumed copyright would have protected the interfaces, rather than technical difficulty.

But it wasn't that they were careful not to do damage, they were careful, but the damage was yet to be seen.

I think it's hard to say, as no one can point to a party that would have likely otherwise caught it, except some guy that noticed that ssh session establishment was 'a bit off'. In fact, if his random usage of xz had been a couple weeks later, he probably wouldn't have investigated because the attackers had released a "fix" for the performance impact. This was from all appearances pure luck that this guy happened to have the noticeable xz impact and cared enough to dig in, and did so immediately rather than maybe waiting a couple of weeks and it would have been "fixed". A two week window between the relatively obvious and the fixed version that from what we can tell, *almost* passed without anyone getting suspicious, except for that one guy.

Many eyes worked this time, but *barely*.

As I recall, they had enabled everything to be done freely except the BIOS. They thought the BIOS would be a lock on the core platform, but enjoy a rich ecosystem of peripherals and suppliers. When companies cloned the BIOS, they did try to sue. Think it became quickly obvious that clean room cloning of the BIOS was too easy and nothing illegal about that.

It depends on how many people are inclined to agree with them and their relative importance to the mission of the company, which they won't know until they try.

By being fired and it becoming headline news, if a critical mass agree with them it might hurt Google's financials and teach the lesson that there's a business cost associated with that behavior. If that lesson is taught, and enough other suppliers learn the same lesson, it may make things harder for Netanyahu and perhaps a more moderate opponent prevails.

If being fired undermines the quality of the product, and you repeat this through enough suppliers, again, similar outcome, things are harder for IDF and Netanyahu opposition may be able to leverage that to a political victory.

In isolation, sure, the impact of a singular act like this is unlikely to have practical import. However if a critical mass of like minded folks act consistently, then it can effect change.

Don't know if that would have helped.

We see that the central complaint is that Microsoft was upselling "logging capabilities". Question is what, specifically, is he talking about? I wager it's not just logging, I'm sure even Microsoft provides at least those. I suspect it's about some sort of log analysis, since 'analytics' is a favorite upsell opportunity in the industry (Cisco paid $28 billion for Splunk for example).

Whether it's Linux or Microsoft technology, I'm wagering they'd still be complaining about not having adequate log analysis tools.

I suspect they got screwed by SolarWinds, they wanted more budget to mitigate this and got shot down as the headline was SolarWinds screwed up, not that Microsoft wouldn't include log analysis, and are pivoting to trying to embarass Microsoft into making those offerings included in the base tier.

Well, he's right here. This was an individual who happened to stumble into this who happened to be employed by Microsoft.

There's plenty to point to to suggest that Microsoft isn't worse than some competitors that people might suggest or even better in some regards, but the XZ situation has nothing to do with Microsoft technical or business leadership other than happenstance of employing the one guy.