Blissfully tranquil.
Blissfully tranquil.
If I get your FIDO2 token and reprogram it without somehow also wiping the data on it, your problem is that I got your FIDO2 token, not that I could reprogram it without erasing it (which theoretically could perhaps be true right now)
For this exact reason, I store my cryptographic keys in a ring which I never remove from my finger.
Requiring that the pacemaker be outside a human body in order to reprogram it seems like a very sensible solution.
Also, you should probably spend more time reading about cryptography and less time reading FIDO Alliance propaganda.
The simpler solution is a tax on scale -- a graduated corporate revenue tax, aggregated across any group of entities which meet the common control [1] criteria. Then it's just a tax, and you simply have to collect it. Very little wiggle room.
If splitting your company in half wouldn't impair any of its lines of business, the CEO has a powerful financial incentive (lower tax rates on the two halves) to do so.
I'd be okay letting them invest in S&P500 and that's about it.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-advances-pelosi-act-to-...
This is pervasive in China; the politicians kid is the middleman. One child policy, so there's at most one kid -- makes it easy to know who to give the stock tips to.
If there is an AI bust, we will have a glut of surplus hardware.
The telcos saw DWDM coming -- they funded a lot of the research that created it. The breakthrough that made DWDM possible was patented in 1991, long before the start of the dotcom mania:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5159601
It was a straight up bubble -- the people digging those trenches really thought we'd need all that fiber even at dozens of wavelengths per strand.They believed it because people kept showing them hockey-stick charts.
Happy to answer questions about all things bcachefs or what-have-you.
just please no more questions about whether or not bcachefs will be in the kernel, I've been asked that enough :)
Has it been considered to have an official (but not exposed to userspace) "btree device" interface?
The idea being that you could write composable wrappers for btree devices the way you can write composable wrappers for block devices (dmsetup, etc). And have a common interface for these kinds of devices -- the kernel has at least two large and well-developed btree-on-a-block-device implementations (bcache/bcachefs and btrfs). Both of these implementations have been criticized as being quite monolithic and not as unixy ("many small sharp tools") as LVM/dmsetup are.