> The fact he's posting on X to begin with is a warning in itself.
Why so? The counter at the bottom of the post claims that it has been viewed 7.5 million times. I don't know how this translates into individual people; but still, probably a decent reach?
People are there for reach. Politicians, celebrities. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer, Kaja Kallas, Ursula von der Leyen... If they don't see a problem, why should the Cloudflare CEO?
Up until yesterday most of us felt the same about "Going into Venezuela and kidnap the president of a sovereign nation" but here we are. Sure, it was also not out of nowhere, but I don't think anyone thought Trump needed such an abrasive distraction from the internal conflicts in the nation.
> to a point where USA might find it's all alone in the world.
I think the US might be misleading itself if it doesn't realize that it already is. We still care for the people, but the government of the US has truly shown that it cannot be an ally today, and the rest of the world already realize this, seems the US is the last to understand it.
I don't mean to downplay how terrible the current US administration is, but removing political leaders in Latin America has been a USA tradition and nobody really considers it odd. The US invading an allied country hasn't happened often.
Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
No matter what, let's not forget Ukraine is being attacked by evil Russia.
> Truly this attack on foreign soil is something without precedents for the USA. What's next, destabilize entire regions? Cause wars? Fund terrorists? Military occupation?
All those things have lots of precedent for the USA.
Oh. Yep. I’m just so used to HN seriously thinking Trump is some new kind of evil unleashed on the world— as opposed to just more of the same thing, wrapped up in a tackier and cruder wrapper— that I only read the first sentence and replied. That’s me being a bad HN denizen for the day.
But on the other hand, Trump's treatment of Europe so far – especially in his second term – would be entirely shocking to the sensibilities of any westerner anno 2015. I'm not so sure the US isn't already steaming willingly towards lonesomeness and antagonizing all of its former friends.
You’re right, but it’s like that kid at school who’s a bully and a d*ck but everyone tolerates and stays kinda friendly with because they’re a bit scared of him, and his parents have the best house for parties.
The US can probably go a lot further than they currently have, before a meaningful coalition of meaningful countries will do anything significant —even just economically or diplomatically— against them in return.
Trump has nothing to lose. He's almost 80, doesn't care for Europe or NATO, and is clearly desperate to be remembered for something significant.
Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books. But if he annexes Greenland and/or Canada, then he's the next Jefferson or Jackson.
He might even rename Greenland+Canada to Trumpland.
> Kidnapping Maduro doesn't really ensure his name in the history books.
I genuinely think this one got them exactly what they wanted. They felt like manly men doing manly men things. Figuratively speaking, they got off on it, stroke egos, felt the excitement of watching the attack and feeling like being the ones who made it.
All those involved are very emotional guys. Not emotional as in liking romance, but emotional as in "driven by feelings and emotions". This made them feel good and manly.
I can't think of a realistic, non-cynical reason that doesn't begin and end with "oil" for even looking funny at Venezuela. The whole "drugs 'r bad" thing doesn't wash.
There are a couple of things I can think of. There's the human rights stuff with torture chambers and a third of the population leaving which doesn't seem to bother Trump but the Venezuelans don't much like.
Gotta be honest: "the human rights stuff with torture chambers" sounds like a bonus to a Trumpista. MAGA is not known for its progressive stance on human rights. More the opposite, really, as long as it's not them doing the suffering (or even being mildly inconvenienced).
You're thinking about it from a sane POV, but the people at the helm are insane. The only question is: would invading Greenland please Trump, yes or no?
Except that our transformation into "the bad guys" is already complete. We no longer have the trust or respect of most of the world. The "end of the empire" is already well under way.
Depends how it goes down, if a company goes into insolvency all security policies are off the table and random hardware can get shifted into lot bidding.
HDD can be written multiple times with random data if data centers really have to protect what their former customers wrote on them. I never looked at those details in standard contracts.
All you really need to do is write one pass of zeros on them. That will prevent anyone but a very dedicated adversary with expensive equipment from recovering any data, especially on TB scale drives.
Can still take hours per drive though, which is why a lot of people skip it.
I make a random 1MB chunk, then write that all over the drive, at overlapping offsets. I've been told that really clears it. On IDE-spinning-rust disks I trusted it, not sure if I should trust these modern SSD
A drive that supports Secure Instant Erase should be encrypting all data. When the SEI function is invoked (“nvme format -s 2”, “hdparm —-security-erase”) they key is thrown away and replaced with a new one. Similar implementations exist for NVMe, SATA, and SAS drives — regardless of whether they are HDD or SSD.
This puts a fair amount of trust and in the drive’s ability to really delete the old key.
it used to be that people started businesses so that they could help others by providing a product or a service to them.
late stage capitalism arrives when people create businesses solely to get rich, and when other companies are created solely to get rich by helping those people create their companies so that they can get rich. that's what ycombinator is.
most of capitalism used to be symbiotic. engaging in transactions with businesses benefited both the business and the consumer.
now we live in a world where most or all of the benefit goes to the business and none or almost none to the consumer.
I think very few businesses were created just to help people. Maybe some nonprofits.
Lots of good businesses were created to just make their owners a reasonable income, I mean, most people will take “be rich” if that’s an option but have reasonable expectations.
The problem with heavily invested in companies is occurs when they skip the stage of being a small profitable business with an actual business model.
I think even 50 years ago, that most people started businesses because they had a skill and could use it to help others meet their needs.
HP started (more than 50 years ago) with two friends who wanted to make better electronic test equipment. Profit was not forefront in their mind like it is to an MBA graduate today. Hewlett and Packard wanted to provide quality test equipment to people, because a lot of the test equipment of the day was subpar to them.
By the time the 80s rolled around, they paid 100% of an employee's college education (no matter how high they wanted to go with that) and paid them 75% of their salary while they were away at school. College was cheaper then, but zero employers today would even briefly consider paying people any amount at all to not be at work while also paying for the thing keeping them away from work.
corner stores in crowded neighborhoods are not started to maximize profit potential for shareholders. corner stores are started because someone saw the need for a corner store and wanted to make a living running it; they wanted that to be their job.
Until the invention of the MBA I don't think most people who started businesses did so purely for money. There are many easier ways to make money. Today people can start shitting mobile games with pay to win mechanics and they will be rich when the first one takes off. No one creates mobile games with pay to win mechanics because they want people to experience the joy of microtransactions.
Every business today (certainly every tech business) is designed to find out what people want via market research, pick the thing that looks the most profitable, then through a very well developed process, turn that business into a source of retirement money for the founder(s) and a source of return for the investors. It is literally a photocopy model of business creation. "Follow the process and you will succeed."
No one is opening shops today to help their neighbor. No one is opening new bakeries because their town needs one. No one is doing anything that one used to see people doing everywhere they went. Profit-driven motivation ruins everything it touches. Everything.
Everything is profit driven, now. Everything. The MBA is the most disasterous degree ever devised. It makes people think that starting a business purely to make money is a perfectly normal and healthy thing to do, and it simply isn't.
> Zero employers today would even briefly consider paying people any amount at all to not be at work while also paying for the thing keeping them away from work.
Apple definitely had programs to pay all or part of relevant educational programs, and they sometimes paid for people to attend conferences. I'm sure it was much more restrictive than the HP policy you're describing here, but it was definitely more than nothing.
some were, maybe. most weren't. most businesses started symbiotically without profit being the #1 concern at all times. Making enough profit to continue the business is indeed important if you want the business to continue, but as soon as profit becomes your primary goal, you go from being a symbiotic member of society to a parasitic member of society.
Seeking profit above all else is not healthy.
Creating a business used to be done by people who had a skill and wanted to make a living doing it. They wanted their business to be their job. No blacksmiths started a business because they wanted to become rich. They wanted to be blacksmiths, they had pride in their work, and they wanted to have money to live as well.
That's a bit naive. Look at the early industrial revolution, when most goods were still made at home, locally or on a small scale by craftsmen.
People went from having the land and resources to craft, for example, their own shoes, then a few decades later they were in a position where they had to buy shitty factory made shoes that fell apart instead because they were kicked off their land to work in factories.
I've seen the land that my ancestors left to become factory workers. There simply wasn't enough of it to feed everyone. In fact, the last pre-factory ancestor worked as an itinerant tailor because there was no land for him to cultivate.
I'm pretty sure factory work was a step upward for these families.
If they were giving it away for free and paying a non-zero cost to do it, that's not sustainable. And that clearly isn't taking all the benefit for themselves. This is a take so bad, it isn't a take anymore...its a personality flaw.
Literally nobody is making that claim. Nobody expects businesses to be charities.
The thing being argued against is businesses solely being viewed as a "get rich quick" gambling scheme, where the only thing that matters is a rapid rise in shareholder value. VCs don't want a company providing a steady retirement fund, they want you to go for a 1000x return or die trying. The logical end result is that you screw over your customers and employees whenever possible, and burn the entire thing to the ground for the last few bucks. Just look at what Broadcom is doing to VMware: they might've delivered some great shareholder value, but they did huge damage to society in the process!
We shouldn't allow businesses to operate like a cancer which grows forever until it eventually kills its host, leeching off as much in the process as possible. If you want sustainability, you should be clamoring for businesses which are happy to just operate: employ some people, provide a valuable service to society, and make some profit - no need to take over the world in a crazy frenzy chasing unlimited growth.
Kind of sad seeing businesses getting screwed by closed source proprietary software, then making the same choices all over again.
Nutanix also seeing huge demand.
Not everyone is repeating their mistakes, with Proxmox and Xcp-ng seeing huge new level of business, as well, which is nice.
I'm part of the Apache CloudStack project and that too is seeing unparalleled levels of demand.
The KVM hypervisor has sort of become the de facto choice, thanks to virt-v2v tool which can help migrate VMware guests.
Curious, I ditched our last VMWare servers ~a decade ago for KVM (via ganeti) for 100-200VMs running our dev, stg, and production loads, and it's been super reliable.
It's not curious at all; your workload was probably easy. The same program can crash constantly on one piece of _correct_ hardware, while working fine on a different piece of hardware.
I was torturing the hardware and KVM wasn't designed to do that, until about two years ago.
It's a little bit scary that guy is the CEO, his post sounds crazy and unprofessional.
The fact he's posting on X to begin with is a warning in itself.
reply