AWS' Nitro platform is no longer based on Xen and the Xen stuff is being replaced/deprecated, including moving some of the old Xen instance types to run on Nitro instead of Xen.
I agree, but I saw it claimed EBCDIC doesn't cover diacritic characters. That's not true.
If ISO8859-1 covers the exact same set that CP1047 does and that doesn't meet GDPR's requirements, that implies ISO8859-1 doesn't either and a unicode based character encoding is a necessity for GDPR compliance.
Then again, unicode doesn't cover the late artist formerly known as Prince's written name either.
All things considered, IBM should work with that Dutch bank to move their system over to UTF-16. It's the natural progression of such things.
Sometimes the lack of diacritic can change the meaning of the name for the worse and either way, names are deeply personal things that people are attached to, so they might want to have it written correctly, regardless. I wouldn't want someone to mispell my name.
You can use NoScript to disable JS and see how well that works.
But more to the point, yes, a browser is a client, but without the economic incentive of either ads or direct monetization from users, many sites, YouTube included, would simply not work. Storage and bandwith costs money. Unless we decided to somehow fund all of this through some sort of additional tax through the ISPs or governments, ads or subscriptions are a necessary evil.
Storage and bandwidth cost money, but not $14/month. You can get a server for yourself for that kind of money, and I don't think YouTube has a server per user.
This kind of fantasy microeconomics debate is silly at best, disingenuous at worst. We are talking about a company with $280B in revenue per year and one of the highest profit margins in America. How they spend that money is not connected to what is fair or what makes some kind of logical sense in your head. It's connected to whatever will increase their profits further.
All you are doing is laying down cover fire to support further advances by an abusive monopolist. YouTube's financials don't HAVE to add up. Google owns advertising for the entire Internet! The entirety of YT could be a loss leader just to suppress the growth of streaming video businesses outside of their control, and the Google monopoly would carry on.
Having a loss leader like this is exactly monopolistic behavior though. The fact that Google are trying to make money from it is expected and more fair to their competitors than just having it completely free, and not having ads either.
No. Trying to make money is something that all businesses do, not just monopolies. Having loss leaders is also something that many businesses do.
Here are behaviors that are fairly unique to monopolies: raising prices while degrading their product. Many businesses try to do these, but monopolies, who have no significant competition, are more likely to succeed. Sure enough this monopolistic behavior is what Google has just exhibited: by banning people who use ad blockers, they have either degraded their product, or raised the price (from $0 to the cost of YouTube Premium for those users), depending on how you look at it.
Produces receive very, very little. And YT doesn't check content (nor content strikes, BTW), so there's a lot of illegal(ish) content which moves money from producer to leecher. It seems active channels get most of their income from 3rd parties as a result. So there's little reason to place ads as far as content production is concerned.
Sure, it is definitely more expensive than I would like. But you still have the option to watch the ads if you don't like paying a sub. Expecting it to be completely free is unrealistic though.
Sure, but then the logical step would be to charge producers and get them to charge viewers, either directly or via ads. But we all know that will result in the demise of the platform, so that's a no-no for both youtube and producers.
Your subscription money doesn't go to the producers anyway, or only little of it, so the $14/mo is for a large part Google's profit.
I'm not sure I would say your $14 doesn't go to the creators: they get paid per minute watched when the user has Premium. A while ago Lon Seidman published a video discussing his YouTube earnings, and he mentioned that Premium is actually much more remunerative for creators compared to traditional ads.
There is a very good reason: the maintainers want to make the change. They don't even need a good technical need to do it, but usually there is at least something that drives the change.
It’s something the maintainer made and licensed in such a way that you can use it for free. The special status concerning “his” code is that it generally is in fact “his” (or her) property.
If you don’t like it you’re free in most cases to fork it and suit yourself.
Either way, it still doesn’t change the fact that there are going to be upstream bugs and vulnerabilities that remain unpatched if you’re trying to keep something frozen for 15 years.
An open source maintainer is a person volunteering their time and resources to offer something usually free of charge. As such, they decide what usecases they want to support and for how long. You can't expect someone to do work for free to support you.
Either pay someone to maintain it for as long as you need or engineer around whatever issues you encounter; it's a you problem, and possibly the development process or software stack you are using is not flexible or robust enough to support your own usecase. Unless you specifically pay for how many years of support you need, then you don't get to decide the terms of whatever support is offered for free.
In software industry we rely on the community to carry the large share of our "expenses". A company that manufactures medical equipment, let's say, pulseox, would normally need well... maybe five engineers working on the project. If suddenly, they also need to maintain a Linux distribution used for their device, they'd need like fifty. This would make pulsox prohibitively expensive and the company would go out of business. Only companies who'd be able to manufacture pulseox would be the companies who are already doing Linux maintainer work internally. Which would eventually lead to a monopoly, and the prices would still shoot through the roof.
But it doesn't have to be this way. If we collectively understand that there's a problem with the absence of real long-term-support releases, then many smaller companies can survive and produce cheap equipment.
Finally, there's no "natural" rate at which software needs to upgrade. There's no reason it shouldn't upgrade slower or faster. The claim the author makes is that hardware used to fall apart in about five years, and that could've been used to justify the short-term support it was getting from software... about 20-30 years ago. But things changed, and we learned how to make hardware that easily lasts 15 years and now we need to re-think how we are dealing with this fact.
I dont think its stupid advice to ask people to choose their tools based on their needs.
If you need 15 year support you choose software that will provide that and not something that does not promise that.
Just as if you are building a house in greenland you would choose different building styles and material compared to building a house in california. His complaints seem more like building a cheap california house in greenland and then complaining that its a bad house.
A star is just a giant fusion reactor. We just need to add more fusion material (hydrogen) and remove the waste material, which gathers in the core and makes it more difficult for the fusion reaction to continue. It would be possible to prolong the life of the Sun for a while by adding more hydrogen to it, and ideally taking out the heavier elements at the center, which might also be valuable on their own. This seems pretty impossible today, but given we survive enough time until this becomes a problem, then we might find ways to also fix it.
