shye

A dead serious question: why?

There's a lot to hate about Java, but it also does some things extremely well. It's valid if you don't like the aesthetics, but that's a you thing. Are there any objective reasons you believe Java is not fit for purpose here?

This effort is relevant to "breaking cryptography" about as much as publishing the script for a 40 years old movie would break the film industry.

I wouldn’t call it “tech”, nor rare. But maybe that’s why I am not in marketing.

In their current scale, I believe Oxide are like Rolce Royce: if you have to ask for the price before taking a test ride, you can't afford it.

From my experience benchmarking S3 express, it is is faster, but not fast enough yet for many use cases.

An obvious disclaimer is that the word "enough" here is carrying quite the weight: I expect it to get better, and each has their own requirements. Do benchmark yourself and don't make expensive decision based on an HN comment.

May own pessimism (based on Google's history) aside, I would argue that while it may fulfill the words of the promise, it surely doesn't fulfill the intent: ChromeOS is a different beast than GooglebookOS. ffs, Google just spent a lot of effort publicizing exactly that.

If you there's no SLAs to engineer for, just set the target at zero, and drive your cost to zero as well. So you have to design for _some_ defined value of reliability.

Backblaze's famous reports put HD failure rate is ~1.39%, so for the 11 9s you get as a guarantee from S3. Assuming nothing else fails, you'd need at least 6 independent copies to get that, plus all the effort to engineer recovery, and constant upkeep.

Suddenly, S3, even when considering bandwidth costs, seems like a steal.

It makes perfect sense: it's a extremely reliable, infinitely-scalable, strongly consistent (in some implementation), cheap, and extremely simple to use key-value store. As such, it transparently solves a lot of the problems distributed systems have to be engineered around.

As long as you can run on a CSP, and can engineer around the high-ish latency (most business cases can), it's extremely expensive to try engineer around it.

Not completely true.

Apple promises all customers 5 years of hardware support past the last day the model was available for sale, and at least two years of limited hardware support thereafter.

In the UK, for iPhone 15 and later, Apple promises at least 5 years of software updates from the time that model was first offered for sale.

I would assume similar schedule outside the UK as well, but afaik it is only explicitly promised in the UK, due to regulatory requirements there.

For enterprise customers, Apple guarantee a minimum period of software security updates for macOS, but the exact period is kept confidential in the specific agreements.

Like the UK iPhone commitment, I assume the enterprise macOS schedule apply to all customers, and Apple just avoids publicly publishing it, I would guess to avoid some legal-induced headaches (which I personally think is the worst excuse, but I digress).

Advertising ten years of support, then, post-purchase of the device, reducing that period by 2 years.

They did. Probably broke contract law (contract needn’t be a signed piece of paper saying “contract” at the top), and depending on the region, multiple consumer protection laws.

It isn’t criminal, but it is illegal mostly everywhere.

In the current telling of this story, the billionaire is also giving his hired army copies of your notes he copied without permission.

But the worst part in your analogy ain’t omitting the suspected spying and the intimidation that followed, but that your hypothetical mathematical philanthropist won’t be able to hire his army: unlike some OAI employees, no self-respecting mathematician would agree to such unethical task.

Anthropic already stopped selling use of their models to xAI when they suspect foul play there.