MS could be far more evil than they are, given their power and market-share. At least Satya is the devil we know.

Lying to the Board and lying to the public are different things.

rivals like AMD and Intel offer competitive specs on paper, but their software stacks have struggled with bugs, compatibility issues, and weak adoption. As a result, Nvidia has built an Apple-like moat around AI computing, leaving the industry dependent on its expensive hardware.

Nvidia's competitors need to work together to improve open-source software tooling and to standardize hardware interfaces, or else go the way of Commodore and Tandy.

Cheapskate co. doesn't want to pay for retraining from one IT specialty to another.

Boeing MCAS, run!

PeopleSkillsGPT failed them

and that takes effort.

We are in an economic mania right now. Governments, corporations, startups, you name it, are all afraid of being left behind. They are buying up memory, disks, computing capacity because, well, if they don't, someone else--one of their competitors--will.

Supply will be expanded and built out while demand remains high.

How long will this take? That's the trillion dollar question. It could be months or it could be years, but at some point, demand and supply will come back into closer to equilibrium. Whether that's because demand crashes or because supply builds up to meet demand is another open question. This has to be one of the greatest repositioning of capital in recent memory.

> Throttling is ineffective if you base it on IP address...

I didn't dictate any specific throttling algorithm. You are stabbing a strawman.

> an attacker obtaining the encrypted vault is probably not going to be able to decrypt many passwords,

That may not be how they breach them. It's an extra layer or device that may have an inadvertent security flaw. The more turtles in the stack, there more turtles there are to hack.

It will be interesting to see who gets rich after the bubble pops. Biggest Game of Financial Chicken Ever, Believe Me!

"Covfefe"

The random ones are too hard to remember, most will copy and paste. Either that, the help-desk is swamped with resets.

I'm not understanding why the traditional approach doesn't need throttling. Keep in mind a DOS attack is usually considered a smaller "sin" than a breach(es). If you allow too many retries, then the second sin is more likely. I see no third option*, it's either a DOS freeze or lots of retries.

If hackers find a design weakness in your company's preferred/required password-keeper, they can potentially hack them all. A company can allow multiple keeper brands, but then they either have to vet them all, or accept that some users will select a dodgy brand.

> I read your setup as a global throttle. If that's not what you meant...

* The best throttling and/or DOS defense strategy/algorithm is a more involve topic, but so far not a difference maker in what we are comparing.

> so now attackers can easily DoS your login system.

What keeps them for doing that with a traditional system? Even a traditional login screen should be throttled.

> Which is why you store it in a password-keeper

Another vector for hacking.

Correction: "With enough". Damn, I hope such simple typos are not a sign of Heimalzers, or whaddever itz called.