Have a look at the Beelink SER5, idle around 5W and its quite affordable

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Ryzen-5-5560U-performance-debu...

What if you passed away and someone wants to access your old data by getting your old email domain Oo

>What if you passed away and someone wants to access your old data by getting your old email domain Oo

What exactly do you think happens to anything of yours after you die if you don't prep for it? With many organizations or property your heirs can use a death certificate or court order to get stuff, in other cases they may just be out of luck. You may even wish it to be so, do you actually want them to have access to your old data? All of it or only some? If you actually care then like anything you need to prep for that while you're still alive in any one of the numerous ways available. If you don't then tough shit, that's why there is constant reminders about setting up wills/trusts and keeping relatives/friends/colleagues in the loop as needed and so on and so forth.

Like with everything else, one should make sure one’s heirs have all the relevant information.

Interesting topic. I think it depends on intent. Whats presented in the article i personally see morally problematic as you pretend to be dumb with the intent to not have to bear some load, relying on the goodwill of others, disregarding the value of their lifetime.

However, if you hide a feature you have in order to not be solely judged by it, its more difficult. I.e. a prince hiding his lineage or an artist hiding his craft.

A good measure is probably, to ask yourself if the other would feel betrayed if you told the truth.

Does that not leave out synergetic effects? While communication costs, it could also reward?

The organization might "know" more about subject A and subject B together than expert A or B, but it will "know" less about subject A than expert A and subject B than expert B.

What about subjects like “building rockets that are moon-capable”? All experts know negligible amounts about this subject, but organizations have “sufficient” knowledge.

That's essentially half my point. The organization might be passable at "building rockets that are moon-capable," but it's going to be worse at each individual specialized task than the individual experts that make it up. One of the C programmers is likely to look at the architecture of the control system and think "that's a dumb way to architect a control system," and he'll probably be right. The same will be true for every subsystem, and even the integrated assembly. However unless someone figures out how to reduce communication costs, that's the best anyone can do; the alternative would be to have a great control system with no rocket.

Is the implication that a company can spend more time and money to get each subsystem to subsystem-expert-acceptance level, or is there something about current organizational practice that makes even this impossible?

Imagine two experts advising a leader. They're not going to fully communicate all of their expertise to him, so his decisions on topic A will probably be worse than expert A, and likewise for topic/expert B. He's going to make better decisions on joint A+B tasks that require combined and balanced knowledge, but both experts will (not incorrectly) see him as "not knowing as much about A/B as I do."

You can substitute the individual leader for a group whose consensus must be obtained and get another parable illustrating the same principle.

So, the leader is an expert on “joint A+B tasks”? Then provided he, the leader, can identify, A tasks, B tasks and A+B tasks and correctly defer on the first two sets, won’t we get optimal decision making?

And are we sure that there really are A+B tasks?