"You can't do X" is a much different experience from "you can do X, but you need to spend a year and thousands of man-hours of paperwork applying for permission to do it".
In China, if the five-year plan prioritizes something, businesses will be up and running in months. In France, if the French parliament enacts a law prioritizing something, businesses still have to fight individual departments or local governments that have their own ideas about how they should regulate it.
I can't believe we're talking about China in the context of a Cloud sovereignty issue and this is even a question.
Having worked for these Cloud providers China has consistently used bureaucracy to exfiltrate Cloud technologies and to tip the scales of effectiveness of offerings through levers with China Telecom/Unicom. Analyzing the backbone, you could see it in real time.
China basically offsets its bureaucracy by doing the one thing Europe has not done so far in this space: overtly hurt foreign competitors. It doesn't matter how superior your offerings are if the end customers end up throttled creating a less desirable experience than the less-featured, stable domestic competitor.
Unfortunately - the elephant in the room is China got to where it was by being overtly adversarial with the US from the jump after 2010 which translated to a number of anti-competitive measures. The EU's in a spot because it's mostly responding to Trump and a poorly written US law. The US and EU are weird friends in that we could both exfiltrate each other's tech, patents, and industrial assets and move on with business but that's not actually what either side actually wants.
China weaponizing bureaucracy towards foreign companies isn’t really relevant though.
AFAIK domestic companies operating in China don’t have to endure anywhere near the amount of red tape that EU companies typically do when operating in the EU.
OpenAI aren’t using their cloud directly, but have signed data center partnerships with them that are effectively huge amounts of debt not backed up with revenue. That’s all liability that Google doesn’t really have because they have revenue from other areas.
> vying with Microsoft for the “worst maintainer of links on the entire Web” trophy
Anybody who has tried to read Microsoft’s dev blogs know they’ve earned that trophy. Raymond Chen’s articles are excellent, but go back a few years and every single link is broken. They’re using WordPress at the moment but don’t use slugs and never bothered to rewrite old URLs from whatever they used to use.
As an aside, I also worry that a software company can’t make a working cookie banner for WordPress.
The Expanding What We Measure section was very nice to see. Thank god somebody is attempting to measure more qualitative metrics like the experience of contributing rather than annoying people into clicking around more.
I took a close look at the November document drop, which had some iChat backups. He really did text kind of like an imbecile. The tone is in his emails too.
I didn't exactly have the highest hopes for Noam, but holy shit was I disappointed in his character over the past few years. Seems like he's actually a pedophile from his reactions to Epstein related leaks.
My interaction prior to that was reading manufacturing consent and saying "yeah, seems about right"
He had a stroke in I believe 2022, and is no longer verbal, so he hasn't been able to give fresh takes on current events such as Ukraine, Gaza, the second Trump term or the latest Epstein revelations.
I remember his Ukraine takes seeming irrationally pro Russia. And somewhat out of character, he electorally supported mainstream centrist democrats.
I think in light of the emails, some commentators have been saying that the bits in manufacturing consent about only acceptable views being published applied to him. He was a token leftist who ultimately supported the status quo.
Whether he was personally a pedophile or merely tolerated pedophiles I don't think I've seen evidence towards. He was certainly a hypocrite, it's disappointing, and a huge stain on his legacy.
But does any junior want to learn C++ Win32? You want to learn something that leads to a long-term career development path, not a sunsetting technology.
They would want to learn Winforms/WPF/WinUI/whatever if microsoft could settle on one and use it. I suppose part of the react native stuff is that Microsoft hasn’t done a good job of making people, even in Microsoft, bet the farm on any of their “native” toolkits.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft can pay them enough to be happy to learn it.
> You want to learn something that leads to a long-term career development path, not a sunsetting technology.
This seems like such an odd take when web frameworks seem to be obsolete almost as soon as you start using them. C++ has and will continue to be around for a very long time.
This is just the result of bad leadership at Microsoft.
Apple maps was the only GPS app that correctly routed me in rural England; others would occasionally tell me to drive straight through a no entry sign. It’s an interesting exception to the rule.
> almost any bugfix at the level of an operating system kernel can be a “security issue” given the issues involved (memory leaks, denial of service, information leaks, etc.)
On the level of the Linux kernel, this does seem convincing. There is no shared user space on Linux where you know how each component will react/recover in the face of unexpected kernel behaviour, and no SKUs targeting specific use cases in which e.g. a denial of service might be a worse issue than on desktop.
I guess CVEs provide some of this classification, but they seem to cause drama amongst kernel people.
reply