I actually view this as a reasonable response. I don't know anything about giraffes so to me it's entirely plausible that they get their spots later in life.
Can someone explain how it's ethical to be working on multiple things like this at the same time (e.g. OpenAI, AI chips, that eye orb crypto thing), but the benefits of each not accruing to the other investors, only to that individual?
I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it.
I love this positive way of looking at it. I wish more people had this as the default - "I did a thing and it was bad/hard, here's my experience so you don't have to do the same."
This is a great explanation of the technical differences between the available options. What are the practical differences - is one option better from a maintenance and usability standpoint for creating systems that are reproducible?
I've lived in the Red Hat ecosystem for work recently. How does this compare to something like...
Fedora Silverblue?
Ansible?
Fedora Silverblue + Ansible?
Alright, I'll bite... What led you to leaving the Linux world entirely? What can "the community" learn from your experience to make it better for others?
Let's put aside the technology not working for a second...
Isn't it ultimately leadership's responsibility to prevent these situations from occurring in the first place? Shouldn't they have been testing/auditing this system beforehand, addressing risks, and ensuring there were adequate operational plans ready in the event of an issue?
It's easy to blame software (even easier when that software clearly doesn't work), but blame ultimately should be on the people making the decisions along the way that led to this outcome.
So other than less battery performance, what other notable differences should I expect from Fedora on M2 vs the native MacOS. (I'm not being snarky, just trying to get a feel for how similar I should expect the performance and peripheral support to be; not focused on differences between gnome and the MacOS UI)
This kind of appropriate skepticism is why I love the HN community. This may be a perfectly innocent project, in which case I hope the author notices these comments and adjusts. But this comment highlights the possibility that it might not be so innocent.
I don't think this can be overstated enough. The incentives for vc-backed companies these days don't align with this model, hence the reason it's not more widely in use.
I've used Mozilla SOPS on many projects and I highly recommend it. I'm not quite sure why, but it just doesn't feel like it gets the recognition that it deserves, which is why I'm happy to see it here on HN.
The question asks why the all 0 public key in SR25519 and ED25519 has a known private key and what users should be aware of when using these curves. The answer explains that this is due to the mathematical properties of the Edwards curve models used in these curves and suggests using hash-to-curve to generate unspendable funds instead of the all zero public key.
First time I'm learning about this. Is it possible to take content that falls into this category and then reformulate it so that it produces more responses?
> It appears to be a baby
I actually view this as a reasonable response. I don't know anything about giraffes so to me it's entirely plausible that they get their spots later in life.