I was around in the 80s and 90s. I remember the stories of how Bill Gates cheated, manipulated, and cast FUD to get Microsoft where it was. DR-DOS, which he kept from the market by making deals with manufacturers where they would get volume discounts based on units shipped, rather than units shipped with MS-DOS, so that systems with DR-DOS would cost more. Sybase, where he made a deal to share technologies from a joint venture, then walked off with their source code, which he sold as his own product. The "Linux is a cancer" campaign. Secret APIs to lock out third-party security products. It's possible to go on and on.

There are highly successful people inside and outside tech that I admire. Warren Buffett? Awesome person. Bill Joy? A light to the ages. Steve Wozniak? Delightful. Bill Gates? Living scum. Not because he's successful, but because that's what he's shown through his actions.

Studies have found that most actively managed funds at any given time fail to match their benchmark indices when you factor in management fees. That is, while the professionals who do the management might know more than you do, they don't know so much more that they can beat market averages by enough money to actually justify their fees. Which means that the best investment strategy is to stick with passively managed index funds. A side benefit of this is that most index funds have very little of any individual security, so you are unlikely to have a situation where your funds are heavily invested in your employer's stock.

The comma says it's not a qualifier. El Capitan is officially the world's fastest (rated) supercomputer. It's intended for classified tasks. top500 lists it as fastest as of Nov 2024. Dojo ai is not listed. https://top500.org/lists/top50...

Reread what I wrote, including the very end of the first paragraph/quote ("there is talk of increasing the levy"), and the second paragraph, which includes recent video and a transcript from Trump. It's not just about what Trump did in 2017. Trump has stated that he plans to increase the taxes and otherwise extract money from university endowments. The transcript says "we will take the billions and billions of dollars that we will collect by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments". Trump said that in 2023, in this election cycle. And it's posted to Trump's own election website.

The statement in the article is objective, not biased. You need to actually read and do some minimal followup.

From the article: "Two Trump administration policies could further weigh on Ivies’ finances. One is a 1.4% tax on income levied as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on endowments larger than $500,000 per student at schools with more than 500 students. A few dozen schools have had to pay it and there is talk of increasing the levy."

In case there is any doubt, you can actually watch video of Trump, on his own site, talking about increasing taxes and fines on University endowments. He discusses it starting at about 0:37.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/a...

netflix was originally a DVD-rental-by-mail company.

Then they basically created online movie streaming. Very successfully.

Then they started making their own content. Very successfully.

Then they expanded into renting games. At least somewhat successfully.

At some point, they shuttered the original DVD rental business.

Now they're looking at making games. They've had a misstep or two. But saying "stay in your lane" is silly when they've successfully forayed into other lanes before. And is doubly ironic when what you think of as "their lane" wasn't their original business.

The EU mandated that Microsoft provide competitors with the same level of access that their own (competing) products enjoyed. Microsoft had at least three options on how to respond and stay in compliance:

1. eat their own dogfood -- make their own products use the same APIs that they were trying to get other companies to use

2. get out of the business of making these security products and let the ISVs figure it out

3. let the ISVs into ring 0

Microsoft could have gone with options 1 or 2, and then Crowdstrike would not have been a problem. They went with option 3. That's on Microsoft, not on the EU.

As with anything else where there are multiple popular choices, there are trade-offs. There are reasons both options exist. For a home user, I would recommend software RAID, though.

1. Hardware RAID makes it easier and safer to RAID your boot device.
2. As others have said, hardware RAID ties you to a particular hardware implementation. That's fine if you have a data center with a lot of duplicate hardware and sparing, but not so good if you're a home user.
3. Hardware RAID limits you to the RAID levels that the hardware implements. Especially for cheap controllers and/or integrated controllers. Software RAID tends to be more flexible.
4. Hardware RAID offloads some of the work from the host CPU to a dedicated controller. For CPU-intensive workloads, that can be an advantage.
5. For certain RAID levels and hardware RAID architectures, hardware RAID can save you I/O bandwidth. The CPU only needs to send a certain amount of I/O to the RAID-card, which then can send more I/O to the actual back-end drives. For really large I/O workloads, software RAID is more likely to saturate I/O bandwidth.
This is not likely to be an issue for home users, though.

Bottom line: for home users, I would recommend software RAID.

We had PC computer viruses that caused "major" damage by the mid 1980s. Internet connectivity was rare at the time. But they didn't need Internet connectivity, thanks to floppy sharing and even BBSs. I remember the Pakistani Brain Virus, in particular, as one that people feared; wikipedia says it hit in early 1986. PCs and their viruses were pretty widespread by the late 1980s / early 1990s.

Of course, viruses spread a lot more slowly in the pre-Internet days. So the more destructive ones would include some trigger date. People could continue to spread them, oblivious. Then -- boom!

Presumably the article author's use of "first major" is a way to generate interest and clicks. Seems to have been successful.

The comments in the summary "Samsung phones now support direct connections to heart rate straps using the Ant+ protocol as well as through Bluetooth. Apple and others have a long way to go to catch up." imply that Apple does not support third-party heart-rate sensors. The opposite is true. Apple has supported third-party heart-rate sensors for a while; see, for example:

http://www.heartratemonitorsus...

My former phone was a Galaxy S3. When I went hunting for heart rate sensors about 1.5 years ago, I could find plenty of heart-rate sensors that supported iphones, but none for Android. A newer release of Android (4.3, IIRC) got support for Bluetooth heart-rate monitors.

Some small fraction of authors' works are popular and produce lots of revenue. Copyright law in the US was explicitly intended to encourage these authors to get into the business. As the US Constitution says, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

There are some authors who can and do make a living at their craft. What if they spend a year working on a book and then die just as it's released? The law can and should allow their rights be inherited, so that their heirs can benefit from the work, rather than having it immediately fall into the public domain.

The rationale why itunes song can be inherited, meanwhile, is even simpler. In general, all property can be inherited. Copyright doesn't change the fundamental nature of the property, it's just a restriction imposed on the property's owner -- even though the owner owns the property, the owner is not free to copy it. This does not change the property's capability of being inherited in any way.

So I see no contradiction. The copyright itself should be inheritable by the author's heirs, and copyright-protected materials should be inheritable by the purchaser's heirs.

Both the rights and the content should be inheritable. The rights because they are part of the incentive for authors -- if the author dies young, the author wants his/her family to be provided for. The content because it's just like any other property from an inheritance and trasnferrence perspective, with the sole proviso that it cannot be *copied*.

"Redeem" in this context means that one gives a certain amount of money to the priest. The Hebrew name for this is pronounced like "Pidyon HaBen." It's still practiced to this day in Jewish Orthodox communities. There is a wikipedia article on it.

In 1993, Apple shipped their first PDA, a primitive tablet-like device, the Newton. Which they had started work on in 1987. Obviously, Apple did not get the idea from a speech Bill Gates made in the 1990s. Although in all fairness, Apple didn't invent the idea, either. Psion had a shipping device in 1984. And Alan Kay had been pushing his Dynabook since the 1960s.

Welcome aboard!

I was talking about when they "entered the market", which was indeed the original xbox. The 360 and its ads were later. That's the point -- MSFT started out lame, and eventually figured it out.