>Sargent also said Kroger would refocus its e-commerce efforts on its fleet of more than 2,700 grocery supermarkets because it believed that its stores gave it a way to “reach new customer segments and expand rapid delivery capabilities without significant capital investments.”
Someone didn't read the 26 year old Webvan case study at CEO-school.
If you pressurize something "incompressible" like water under a cap of impermeable rock you are to still compressing the water and compressing the surrounding rock. The whole industry of fracking operates on compression rock to the point of fracturing it and forcing open the cracks. At 600-1300 bar water compresses 3-6%. It's the "equivalent" of a reservoir at the height of everest or higher.
The thing that's hard about the intellectual curiosity part is knowing what comments are from actual experts and what are very smart people opining outside the edges of their circle of competence - while still sounding smart.
There was a discussion here where a professor with a specialty on the underlying subject was 'corrected'/crowded out by very detailed comments that sounded cogent, had buzzwords in them but ultimately were incorrect.
Seeing that makes me wonder about the discussion here on topics I know nothing about. Vetted flair for subject matter expertise for users would help. I'm still interested in what a chip designer has to say about astronomy but it would make it easier to weigh the contribution.
You can assume that for any subject other than CS, unless someone specifically mentions their credentials in the field, most commenters won't know what they're talking about. Hacker News has a reputation for "aggressive ignorance" outside of its wheelhouse.
Remember, HN isn't exactly checking anyone's CV at the door. All it takes to post here is knowing how to fill out a web form. The culture here tends to believe the simplistic design somehow draws deep technical intellects like moths to a flame but it really doesn't.
That's why I like to read most of the comments on a post, because typically I'll find some useful information scattered throughout. After I'm done, I can roughly get a sense for "excellent comments", "comments that probably have a good point", "medium-quality arguing", and "probably just wrong comments". Then I may seek out other submissions of the same topics to get more data. Over time, I refine which points I think are probably valid. HN has its gems, just perhaps not as often or obvious as advertised.
Whenever one of those rare topics comes up where I consider myself a subject matter expert (or where I have non-public knowledge), very often the top comments and the threads getting the most "action" sound HN-smart, but are totally factually wrong. Extrapolating this, I can only assume that the top comments on other topics are also usually wrong and/or contradict actual experts.
> The thing that's hard about the intellectual curiosity part is knowing what comments are from actual experts and what are very smart people opining outside the edges of their circle of competence...
Three thoughts...
1. I really enjoy seeing what the extremely technically accomplished users think about non-technical topics.
2. I like that only my accumulated knowledge of their usernames allows me to easily connect the dots for thought #1.
3. It is fun when you come to appreciate someone's thinking on many non-technical topics then later, on a technical thread, realize that user is the person behind $SOMETHING_BIG. But that fun relies on accumulating #2.
Unfortunately, NT for Alpha only ran in a 32-bit address space.
"The 64-bit versions of Windows NT were originally intended to run on Itanium and DEC Alpha; the latter was used internally at Microsoft during early development of 64-bit Windows. This continued for some time after Microsoft publicly announced that it was cancelling plans to ship 64-bit Windows for Alpha. Because of this, Alpha versions of Windows NT are 32-bit only."
Alpha support was removed in one of the later NT5 betas right? Makes sense that it would've been late 90s then, before it was renamed Windows 2000 for release.
It was canceled essentially overnight by Compaq higher-ups, teams at Microsoft and Compaq learnt when they came to office. It was present on last release candidate before RTM, because it was essentially the only 64bit platform to actually fixup 32bit issues that prevented 64bit address space in earlier NT releases.
With a good scope we could inspect 0.35um chips just fine. I honestly didn't look at die photos much after that until we started getting SEM images of 32nm and smaller chips
They're using Signal to circumvent the Presidential Records act - the US government nowadays has ample ways to officially and quickly communicate with each other, while being in compliance with recordkeeping and national secrets requirements.
Use of Signal has been rife in Washington DC since COVID times.
During COVID they closed many of the secure facilities indefinitely. Building access was on a rotation, so many people couldn’t see or communicate with their counterparts for weeks or months unless their rotation intersected. The government had no plan for how to conduct classified business with their facilities closed for extended periods. It is in this milieu that Signal became established as an alternative way to communicate.
They required almost everyone to work at home without a plan for how that is supposed to work when most people don’t have a SCIF[0] in their house. As bad as it is that the US DoD converged on using Signal, there is an identical issue in many European countries with the pervasive use of WhatsApp for sensitive communication. It is a classic case of shadow IT taking over.
It is first-hand knowledge, I was doing quite a bit of government work in Washington DC during COVID. Everything ground to a halt because it was so difficult to connect with people. I use Signal today primarily because of working in Washington DC.
That is what I assumed as well. In both the current and previous admins.
But as more details come out about the current admins use of signal, this appears to not be the case.
They are using a shitty third party patched version of signal specifically designed to archive messages.
Leaving aside the security issues with the version they are using and the lack of public facing policy, the use of a Signal variant that archives chats is a reasonable compromise.
Instead of walling off users, creating a barrier to use and therefore extensive bypassing of the security standards, they have met users where they are and provided them with what the user cannot distinguish from official signal. This allows them to interface internally and externally through signal, preserving records and maintaining a much better level of security than the other options.
This represents a huge breach of trust between external parties and government signal users, but most of the government signal users are probably completely unaware that it's being logged.
My issue is not that they are using Signal. I think it's one of the better options. My issue is that they use a shitty version of it when there should be an in house maintained version for government use.
Am I remembering it wrong or did Microsoft use an undocumented call in excel to grant it more memory than was possible for early competitors who didn't also write the OS?
they did. later during the Netscape antitrust case it was shown in court that Microsoft gave Internet Explorer internal Windows hooks that Netscape couldn't have known about because they weren't documented.
A set of four castors. Like the bottom of a shopping trolley. Yours for $699
Tell your friends! "Each castor costs one hundred and seventy five dollars. It costs four hundred thousand dollars to run this computer... for twelve seconds. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!" (https://youtu.be/jHgZh4GV9G0?t=19)
Someone didn't read the 26 year old Webvan case study at CEO-school.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=26728