The commenter clearly seemed to think the world was going to be supremely unfair to the CEO (turns out 'exec' is ambiguous, as the man, his wife, the mistress, and the mistress' husband are all executives one place or another). You said the exec deserves to lose because of his actions, which seems to be inconsistent. The commenter's stance is based on his blatant assumption that the wife was not earning money and the mistress was just some gold digger, and that even if the wife wasn't earning money, that if the split happens it's unfair for her to get a cut of the CEOs wealth that he earned.

The assertions of misogyny are because he filled in the gaps he didn't know with assumptions consistent with negative stereotypes of women in these situations. He jumped right to the fiction of the struggling man paying huge alimony to some indolent ex-wife living a life of luxury. That the mistress was only in it for gold
digging.

You seem to have just been hit with the headlines and manufactured a scenario where he is a rich guy married to a stay at home wife, with a gold digging mistress.

My spouse was interested enough to bother to dig in and the reality is that the CEO, the wife, the mistress, and the mistress' husband are all four rich with income, so alimony is likely not even a factor. Similarly, the assets being split is unlikely to be lopsided.

From what I've seen in actual life, that all seems to be a rich person trope, and an exaggeration. Those I've known with modest lifestyles that get divorced seem not to have encountered a whole lot of financial duress due to that (maybe child support, but not the wife). I was at a business lunch where three people started bemoaning this as if it were true, that their former spouses are just draining them of all their cash. However, one of them had just been talking about his brand new BMW M5 that his 'lame' former wife would never let him buy and another chimed in with the same experience, albeit with a more humble Kia Stinger. Broadly they all seemed to be doing quite well and the wife would have otherwise been stuck high and dry largely at their "man of their house" mindset that didn't have her earn an income, which is fine, but expect them to be able to use some of your income even after the relationship falls apart.

Maybe it's less about the 'AI' and more about the 'slop'. Just like mobile games are flooded with slop, even before AI.

Just because Bitanica gets it right, doesn't mean the broader world understands it.

His complaint is that too many people think of it as a 'degree to get coding' and it's more than that. You seem to agree with that, though maybe room to quibble over the nuance of what more it is or how it should be described.

Yes, it does need an exclusion zone, it is laid out in their page:
https://thekitepower.com/the-f...

They also note that the flight zone can be used for multiple purposes, subject to limitations.

While Agrivoltaics is a thing, trying to discuss how much power output per area becomes tricky. They are splitting the sun between the crops and panels and so that ability to get 10kw in 40m2 becomes who knows how much more land depending on which approach is selected. It's just a statement that sparse panels might mike good shade for livestock, or that being at a *super* suboptimal angle allows enough light for the plants, while tanking the efficiency of the panels so you are spending way more per kw than deploying them optimally.

Of course, while they mention agriculture, their main scenario seems to be a medium term rental for a project site, which they tout as quick as a big diesel generator but without the emissions. So they are thinking about not needing a project to deploy the solar before doing the actual project when compared to solar, and then having to take down the solar. I'm not sure, practically speaking, the "green" ness is enough to move people away from the status quo of big diesel for such projects,particluraly since they do need the flight zone left clear of structures and the "potential" flight zone seems like a big risk for any construction you might do, even if you could spare the "flight zone" from active work.

Agreed, the move to call them "reasoning" models annoys me.

They basically just go "generate even *more* text and only provide the last bit. Basically to write a story about what "thinking" about the question would look like, which does seem to produce marginally better final output at the expense of an order of magnitude more tokens expended.

But then you look at the "reasoning" chain and you'll see mistakes that, if it were really a reasoning chain, would propagate to next step of the "reasoning" process, but frequently they are anomalies and the next text is generated as if the previous text said the correct thing.

Seems to be that they established that expending more tokens and disposing of most of it causes better results, and that the content to be ignored cosmetically resembles a reasoning chain when it's all correct and consistent, but the errors don't propagate in a way that would be consistent with that truth.

I think the point was that with solar, that area can have bulidings or "I don't care about what's underneath", but it can't be deployed and have the land also be used for farming. In the kite scenario, the land can do double duty for some things, like agriculture, so long as you land and secure the airfoil during times when you want people in the flight zone.

So you give up 20m2 to get 100kw of wind power with a large 'no people should usually be here' area, but plants, sure. To do the same with solar, you'd need about 745 m2 of non-farm land available, though that can include roof tops, though angle may be suboptimal.

Looks like they claim 30kw for current product, and 100kw for an iteration coming soon, rather than 10kw. Also for 10kw, we are talking about 40 square meters of area, and the base station for these is about 20 square meters, and yes this is still comparing just the base station of one to total footprint of the other, and if we compared total deployed area, then solar *easily* wins in every factor except for all I know cost.

However while the total area may be pretty large, the area doesn't have to be as cleared or denied sunlight. So you might get to ignore the overall volume for some applications. So it might be fair to compare the ground station footprint to solar footprint.

For example you have a farm where the land is valuable for crops, but you could abide an airfoil around when the fields aren't being worked, or are being worked by pure automation. When you need the flight area worked, you can probably easily land the airfoil for that duration, and then return it to operation when that is done.

Conversely, useless in urban or suburban scenarios but solar is trivial to deploy there.

So if you have a bunch of effectively wasteland, I think this is unlikely to make any sense. But if you have a nuanced land area where people don't need to be, but you do want the land for other purposes, I could see this kite scenario playing out.

Nah, if they were using can't and still are using VMware, is because they are terrified of any new product and wild be afraid of a salesman offering anything new.

Now any company entertaining *starting* to use VMware, now those are the folks you have a good chance of suckering coming in cold.

I'm not sure that I'd consider vCenter to look more sophisticated than vCenter, just different. I will say that at least once the WebUI got a VM into a state it didn't understand how to come back from, and had to log in and directly run a qemu command, which would probably be a deal breaker for a vmware shop, but it *looked* fine at least.

I'd say the distinction between 'dedicated ESXi hypervisors' versus 'full Debian' is actually a bit arbitrary, ESXi is a 'full OS', just VMWare wants to pretend very hard that it isn't. I consider it an asset to be flexible, but I could see how someone could see it as a bad thing because someone could get 'adventurous' and get in over their head by messing directly with the environment too much.

The API continues to be pretty direct about the parts of the solution, without any abstraction so you still must treat LXC *very* different from VMs, but on the other hand they are very different, and VMWare API doesn't even have a model for dealing with containers, so it's not a point of comparison. Based on my vmware api experience, should they add something like LXC containers for some reason, it would be abstracted like crazy, but also fail to be consistent with VM abstraction anyway.

So VirtualBox is akin to VMWare Workstation, which is about as free as VirtualBox, both with parent companies that I wouldn't personally trust to keep the bargain, though VMWare is a lot more in flux now than VirtualBox. Broadly speaking, no business cares about desktop virtualization except *maybe* as an on-ramp to infrastructure virtualization.

FreeBSD Jails are in the neighborhood of containerization. While VMWare has tried to pretend to be relevant, they really aren't to that. That isolation is of course much more lightweight and manageable compared to trying to do something similar with virtualization. However some contexts are served better by a full fledged virtualization.

KVM is a low level implementation detail, that is important but not really the level that folks would consider competing with 'VMware'. You have libvirt based management stacks (ovirt, which should be pretty much considered abandoned), openshift (which is first and foremost a container platform, but RedHat kind of sort of trumpets the fact you can run QEMU as a container in it, a bit 'weird' for a vmware user), or openstack (not personally a fan, a bit chaotic and ultimately not a solid experience). You also have things like just using virsh from command line, virt-manager from gui, or cockpit over web to manage virtual machines, which can capably compare with using ESXi as a standalone thing.

Probably the closest in nature to 'vCenter' I've seen is ProxMox VE. Simple and to the point to deploy (unlike most of the other multi-node virtualization stacks) and sidesteps libvirt (which in the fullness of time has kind of constrained stacks built on it as qemu has grown up).

Oracle entered the lead decades ago...

Or if it's pissing everyone off the fastest, they are near the bottom as people are already as pissed off as they could get, there is no pissing further off.

Well, *duh*, if you could have SSD for the same cost as magnetic drives then of course everyone would want them.

Joke can be on you though, you didn't say SSD, you said NVMe. So there is a concept of a spinning disc with an NVMe interface, since it's increasingly weird to bother with SAS/SATA when PCIe interfaces are more and more prolific, including switch chips taking the role of things like SAS expanders. So it may well be that you can get slow disks that are, technically, NVMe drives.

Yarrr

Maybe you mis typed or omitted something and didn't realize it? He quoted you directly: "Also it's not been very successful so it makes sense to roll it into the Android project." His reading of your comment was pretty straightforward.. My best guess is you meant it wasn't successful at being any more minimalist than Android, since it had Android runtime, you might have had to sweat local storage, and you had ability to run full on debian in container. They got the 'drawbacks' of Android while still being awkwardly 'almost Android'. But that's making a leap because there wasn't an explicit link between the thoughts.