BinaryIdiot

She had multiple charges but was only found guilty of defrauding investors. She was actually acquitted for defrauding patients.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/03/elizabeth-holmes-tria...

I feel like I'm missing something here. It's really just a single sentence? Why would so many sign their name to this? It's like signing your name to "Keep children safe" but providing zero remarks, feedback, suggestions, etc for HOW and with WHAT and by WHO.

Why would so many academics / industry leaders sign their name to what amounts of marketing fluff?

He started out after college with negative net worth

He did not. Maybe "on paper" in a very specific way you could say that, but that ignores everything else like how he had very, very rich parents and connections. His very first company, Zip2, had his father as the first investor like come on.

He would have had to try NOT to fall into money.

from that became the world's richest man through transforming electric cars and rocketry

Tesla existed before Musk. He provided investor money then a couple of years later lead the charge to unseat the founder as CEO which eventually led him to becoming CEO. Up until about 2016, Tesla would have gone bankrupt without government assistance, and they have an entire management team that deals with the day-to-day as well as managing Musk.

For SpaceX Musk did found the company but it was essentially engineered by the CTO down. Musk isn't out here making rockets himself.

Now that him and his yes men are running twitter, you're seeing his true management style in action. This kind of stuff has been said / reported about him for decades. I knew multiple people who worked at Tesla and all of them quit without a year and just talked about how terrible it was (especially the multiple times when they found out they were delivering things they had never discussed and hearing it first from Musk when he said it in public / social media).

He's not going to see your posts, bro.

The last thing Elon engineered was a website about 30 some years ago and when he hired developers, they rewrote everything he did.

He's always been pretty bad a managing a business, too. This is why he doesn't actually run any of them. You'll notice SpaceX and Tesla both have adults in charge.

It's always surprising to me when people think he's amazing when really, he has a lot of money and people get paid to manage him_ inside of his companies. Twitter just showed what it looks like when Musk tries to manage things himself.

Scalpers are always a short term thing. None of them ever order supply that will last years, usually 3-6 months at most. If you end up being caught holding the bag with a normal amount of demand, you then break even at best or likely lose a little re-selling them at the prices you paid for.

A year from now nvidia will have new GPUs and the 3000 series will be relatively easy to buy.

Considering encrypted messages have to both be encrypted and decrypted, I don't think his statement is necessarily against encrypted. I assumed he meant preventing the sending of known materials like that and / or the opening of it (which wouldn't interfere with end-to-end encryption at all).

Cool, thanks for the info! I'm going to check out that list.

This really reminds me, it's been two decades now since I've taken _any_ Algebra. I'd really love to go re-learn it from the basics on up. I mean, I still remember a lot of it here and there but some sort of refresher course up to doing more advanced would be awesome.

Any recommendations?

I've only heard a few interviews where various doctors or scientists have said this is the case but I'm no expert.

Why develop a vaccine for a disease that is now non-existent?

I think the idea here is since both SARS and Covid-19 are part of the coronavirus type, a vaccine for SARS would make modification and rapid deployment of a Covid-19 vaccine significantly better.

Really, any existing coronavirus vaccine would have helped research efforts tremendously.

SARS-COV-1 infected people for 2 years, then it was gone. There's certainly a chance that SARS-COV-2 disappears before a vaccine could make it to market.

Highly unlikely. SARS ended up infecting an order of magnitude less people _in its entire 2 year run_ than Covid-19.

We will have this virus around for at least 5+ years, possibly forever.

It's pretty amazing that a company in the financial sector that holds a lot of people's money doesn't have the ability to, say, cut to a backup system.

Considering all of their past fumbles (like thinking FDIC covered brokerage accounts and the multitudes of technically issues) I wonder if their user-base will finally start migrating elsewhere. It's clear they're don't have the talent to handle this.

Do we know how much emissions can be attributed to Amazon / AWS? I'm curious if this $10 billion fund could offset that or if it's too small to cover their own use.

Though, to be fair to Amazon, this is at least a good goal:

Amazon expects 80% of its energy use to come from renewable energy sources by 2024, up from a current rate of 40%, before transition to zero emissions by 2030.

As far as I can tell this page first appeared in 2008. Many of these points are outdated (some woefully so).

This shouldn't be on the frontpage of HN. If anything, Clang should take this down or revise it.

Good points. My only hesitation on the charger definition is most laws include whatever definition the legislature is operating under and sometimes it's different than what you'd expect.

I'd like to see some clarification :)

Hmm. You make a good point.

In my attempt at reading both of these there seems to be a clear distinction being made when it refers to cables and when it refers to chargers. It also never really mentions ports.

Therefore, to me, it cares less about the port and cable on the phone half and more about the brick / part that plugs into the wall.

Neither document provides a definition for "charger". So perhaps whoever is in charge of implementing this directive (I'm not sure how this works in EU law) can interpret it either way?

I wish it was more clear.

The joint motion points to adopting Directive 2014/53/EU which requires common _chargers_ but says nothing about the port that the phone uses. As far as I can tell this is only for the back half of the charger / brick that connects to the wall.

Yet the Apple statement, and most of the articles about this (including the linked one), are talking about the phone's connector and talks about lightning and usb-c. Most of the comments online are talking about how this forces Apple to use usb-c.

So, which is it? Isn't this just regulating the power bricks / back half of the charging equation? I don't see anything in the joint motion or directive stating a connector on a device has to be uniform at all.

Joint motion: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2020-0070...

Directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02...

I worked on a large DoD contract where there was a core of about 12-20 people doing the majority of the work and about 140 additional people just... having a job.

The legal requirements to collecting money on defense contracts pretty much always does this.

It makes me realize that Google's no humans policy -- is it a policy? -- is actually a strength here. My domains purchased through Google are safe from social engineering because, well, there are no humans to contact to ask them to manually move domains.

Except Google actually has a lot of humans in the loop for Google Domains. I was having an issue transferring a domain and I clicked a button to chat and was talking with a real person in about a minute.

Granted, they may have better security procedures but they're still humans.

Oh for sure! When I worked as a contractor I worked with many departments but even the groups I worked with didn't represent the entire department they were in. But it was a very common theme with every single one that I worked with.

I'd love to see some data on FOSS usage across the DoD but that type of audit is likely impossible.

I didn't say it was someone random but it's from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It's a non-profit, which is good, but they do other things so getting press for the Doomsday clock is highly beneficial for them.

I'm not saying they update it _just_ to get press but I'm sure they highly enjoy the press they get every-time they touch the thing.

Their reasoning seems sound to me but I'm amused that someone built a clock that shows what their current guess is for when "doomsday" will happen and they get free press every single time they change it.

I feel like I'm missing out on doing something silly that I can periodically change, call a press conference for and get some attention.

The motto seems to be: "Open Source is BAD! How are we going the get support?! Let's just buy a product or solution from a vendor"

Not really accurate anymore. Maybe it was true a decade ago but when I worked in the DoD space almost every single project was attempting to use ONLY FOSS where possible and to try and move off of companies proprietary stuff.

Unfortunately most of the projects I've seen ended up failing and Palantir usually sweeps in and gets a contract because the users really like it.

There is a huge want inside of the DoD for FOSS, it's just mortally wounded by others who want systems like Palantir or through simple incompetence.

In my experience, anyway.

I don't think a Dow component has ever been halted before, so this is highly unusual.

What do you mean? Stocks get halted all the time especially before big news.

In my experience the only time this matters is when you're doing contracting work and a government entity or company requires X certificate(s) to win a contract. It's amazing how many government contracts require certain, easy to get certificates and you can't work on the contract without them.

Beyond that I have never seen them be useful unless your company has, say, pay raises tied to extended learning (which is a common thing with teaching but that's going to college, not some Google cert).

To be fair even if he is exaggerating this should be refund-able. So trying to figure out if he is right or wrong about easy it is doesn't really matter.

I also think that a salaried engineer who thinks that a piece of code he or she (but almost always he) wrote is "his" or "hers" is totally wrong. It's the company's code.

While this is _technically correct_, this isn't how humans work. Humans attach their worth to things they do, even when they shouldn't. It's a difficult thing to avoid to most people so if you write some code, commit it and then later see a teammate completely rewriting it, it can come off as either:

1. You spent a lot of time and hard work on code that you kinda identify with (I mean, it's code you wrote. It's your "art") and then someone comes in and re-writes it without even asking you about it can make it feel that they think you're an idiot.

or maybe even worse

2. They didn't know the reason you wrote it that way (maybe it was in support of future changes?) and now they just screwed it all up.

Maybe you haven't run into either of those situations. If you haven't, great! I spent the first part of my career hitting the first one because of how hard it can be to disassociate with the work you produce and the second one I see happening occasionally. It's a breakdown in communication within a team.

Unfortunately most of Roblox games are just attempts to siphon your money by buying Robux. Their target market, kids around 8, beg their parents for Robux so they can buy some stuff in one person's game.

It's incredible how much money they make through tactics that make many of their games not really enjoyable unless you spend a lot of money in them.

they are NOW finally starting to pursue the signage / label markets

Your statement implies this is a recent development but many large retailers, like Best Buy and Kohls, have had these for well over 5 years, maybe even 10 I just don't remember precisely.

Happening hours after Iran's strike against bases in Iraq raises the obvious question: is this in any way related to the strikes or a coincidence?

I'm guessing it'll be at least a few months before we hear about the why but I wonder if there will be additional focus on it due to the recent tensions.

you want to share as much code as possible between your web and mobile apps, and also backend

I've worked on 3 start-ups and 3 major, large companies. So far every single one of them tried to do the whole share code everywhere thing and every single time it ultimately cost us far, far more time to get everything working and then subsequently testing re-used code.

I've worked two projects where we used different components and code, for 99% of everything, across server, mobile and native and we were able to work _significantly_ faster.

So I'm curious, would you work towards sharing code again if you had to start from scratch? Has it ended up being worth it? Because my personal experience so far has seen it usually be more of a liability than anything else so I'd love to know how it worked out for others.