The trust problem here isn't with non-profits in general, it's specifically with Sam Altman. So no, you probably shouldn't trust the next non-profit he is involved with. But also, people have warned about Altman in advance.
Yes, you should still trust cooperatives and syndicates. I am surprised they’re attempting such a brazenly disrespectful move, but in general, the people who started this company were self-avowed capitalists through-and-through; the fact that they eventually reverted to seeking personal gain isn’t surprising in itself. That’s basically their world view: whatever I can do to enrich myself is moral because Ethical Egoism/Free Market/etc.
I’ve started to use emacs in my computer sciences school 30 years ago (EPITA in Paris). The Lab was surrounded by Mips, Sun, Alpha, … great time.
The only weakness of Emacs (according to me) was the lack of a good major mode (module) to edit web template : imagine editing a php block inside a javascript part embedded inside html.
After testing many modes, I started to develop web-mode (http://web-mode.org) that is now compatible with about thirty template engines. What a wondeful trip it was to discover the power of Lisp and what a pleasure it is everyday to know exactly what happens when I hit a key while editing an html file.
I am the only Emacs user in my company (kernix.com) but nothing would make me switch. I can not imagine using an editor that would not open in less than a second (or that would eat hundreds of Mo of RAM)
I Hope Emacs will see a usage surge with the inclusion of tree sitter… editing in emacs will be even faster and more robust. Not sure tree sitter is suitted for multi languages files … but for this you have web-mode ;)
I'm not even sure about the state of this in other editors: Emacs allows syntax highlighting of different languages to be used correctly in nested regions. For example in org-mode you can have source blocks of any other language and you can see them syntax highlighted correctly. Maybe some other editors manage this for markdown's tripple backtick syntax, but do they add syntax highlighting of various mainstream languages to their markdown "modes", or do they actually have that use their separate "mode" for that language, possibly recursively?
Would be great, if anyone could comment on that. I think Emacs using Elisp has natural potential to do it recursively and therefore easily correctly, instead of cramming other modes with syntax, that does not belong there.
Is there a good article explaining what is shared between ARM processors (ie. M1 / Graviton), what makes them "compatible" ? and how they can add specific features still keeping them compatible ?
ARM defines the Instruction Set Architecture for ARM-compatible CPUs.
It has major versions, like Armv8-A and Armv9-A.
The major versions have minor subversions, like Armv8.2-A and Armv8.5-A.
The versions and subversions have mandatory features, which must be implemented by everybody who claims to make an ARM CPU, and optional features.
Like on x86, where there is the CPUID instruction, on an ARM CPU it is possible to determine what version and subversion of the ISA is implemented, and which optional features are implemented, by reading some special registers.
It is possible to make a program that on newer CPUs will take advantage of some features, but on older CPUs it will have a fall-back code path of lower performance.
Because Apple writes software only for their CPUs, they do not bother to write programs that will also run on CPUs made by others, which may lack some of the features implemented on Apple CPUs.
As mentioned in the parent article, Rosetta needs FEAT_FlagM, which is implemented only on ISA versions of Armv8.4-A or newer.
All the ARM cores licensed from the ARM company with the exception of those introduced in 2021 (and also NVIDIA Carmel and the last cores designed by Samsung before giving up), support only Armv8.2-A, and those older than Cortex-A55 (e.g. Cortex-A73, Cortex-A72, NVIDIA Denver) support only Armv8.0-A.
This leaves very few non-Apple CPUs which can execute Rosetta, i.e. only the latest smartphones of 2022 with Armv9.0-A CPUs (Cortex-X2, Cortex-A710, Cortex-A510) and the Graviton 3 servers with Armv8.4-A CPUs (Neoverse V1).
Besides the ISA level compatibility, there is also the problem with the standard peripherals, e.g. timers, which also may differ between ARM CPU implementations.
As explained in the parent article, Rosetta is not written to work with any timer frequency, but accepts only a few values, so it had to be tricked to work on Graviton 3.
Because on any ARM system it is possible to determine the frequency of the timers, it would have been possible to write Rosetta to work with any frequency, but again, there was no reason for Apple to make it more flexible, when they want it to run only on their hardware.
Mozilla is the new Netscape. Their only focus should be to build the best browser in the world (like firefox at the origin, fast, simple, small, multiplatform). They have wasted so much money with ridiculous projects. Even sadder, they have weaken the only promising one : rust.
It is a real opportunity missed for google. Slack/Teams is the current heart of company activities all over the world and Google only provides tens of similar chat tools. They should really communicate about this.
Google is so big I'm sure they had their own ups and downs. I see so many school districts doubling down on Google Classroom--the district may have used it previously, but were now adding accounts for Kindergarteners.
While Google usage is way up, ad buys dropped like a rock.
I never understood how a company like Google constantly tries to build a decent chat app but never succeeds. They have so much software developers, they own the biggest ad-network worldwide and the majority of mobile phones runs their operating system with their appstore and default apps. They are the biggest email provider as well iirc.
How can you fail so miserably with building a chat app when you're in such a starting position?!
That answers your question TBH; I'm sure that every week, a team in Google goes "Let's use our 20% time to make a NEW chat app, only better!", and every year or so, one of those experiments makes it to the board who goes "Yeah this is the best thing ever, let's kill <yesterday's chat app> in favor of this!"
I feel like it's down to a lack of focus as a company on the one side, and too much of a shift in focus on the other.
What they should do (IMO) is to capitalize on that shift from Google to Alphabet and create a sub-company dedicated to chat, instead of leaving it to whatever organizational structure Google itself has. Make it their primary reason for existing instead of "a project a team within Google happens to be working on at the moment"
(caveat: this is based entirely on a very superficial view of Google and how things are organized internally. I'm sure there's a whole floor or building dedicated to one project. Probably not Hangouts though, that product is 'done' and all they do now is keeping it alive, maybe some support for paying customers)
I've always received (very) high quality responses from Stripe support in the next 12h. It's a great company.
Concerning Braintree, the fact that they do not provide REST like API and only SDK is a no go.
