theyve been marketed as a serious competitor to vmware for 15 years. their sales reps mightve just not found you until recently. but we did a poc with them 10 years ago and i dont believe much has changed since
everything will eventually go to zero. we look at some of these things and laugh because we're pretty sure they're going to go to zero within weeks or months vs years. but by the end of all of our lifetimes, most the companies on the stock market will be replaced. the few that won't are probably investment banks like goldman sachs
these deals are made as part of a market so it's more like musical chairs where every time you change a chair you get a ton of money but you don't want to be the one that's stuck without a chair at the end
I think people don't understand what this means either. the nation-state "agencies" that can and will get into your network/devices can do so because they would employ tactics like kidnapping and blackmailing a local telco field technician. or if it's your own government, they can show up with some police and tell them to do whatever and most will comply without even receiving a proper court order.
so unless you're worth all that trouble, you're really just trying to avoid being "low hanging fruit" compromised by some batch script probing known (and usually very old) vulnerabilities
he essentially invented the modern concept of conscription. there were press gangs and conscription-like things all through history but for the most part soldiers were professionals
He didn't invent it, the revolutionary government did and Bonaparte then inherited a massive experimented army after the French Republic having been at war for a decade when he took power.
who has discouraged "sucking it up"? what systemic policies have changed to accommodate this? as far as I can tell, someone can explain how they're the victim to anyone and everyone they come across and no one will care. I can't see how anyone emotionally or materially benefits from saying they're a victim. they may want sympathy but they will not get it.
that said, I don't live in a coastal city where there might be more accommodations for such things. where I live, people are generally on their own to find the means to survive. but, in line with the theme of the post, I'm fairly certain people here have a lower life expectancy and generally lower health than people in places where there is a more robust support network. in which case, the body must, in fact, keep the score.
> who has discouraged "sucking it up"? what systemic policies have changed to accommodate this?
When I reported being assaulted, I was vigorously encouraged to attend counselling, and it was suggested to me that if I felt fine I should allow myself to be persuaded otherwise.
I have heard anecdotes of e.g. rape victims not being believed because they don't seem to be traumatised enough.
This is part of the "persecution of conservatives", where they "can't say a thing anymore". They obviously can, and still do, but feel their voices are being suppressed. The reality is that their opinion isn't popular anymore, and they're used to being listened to unconditionally, and can't stand that people don't agree with them anymore.
The annoying thing here is that it's simply not true, especially in regards to men. It's still the norm to be told to suck it up, or you're not a real man. It's toxic masculinity, and it's obvious that's taken on a massive rise in popularity, thanks to folks like Joe Rogan and the like.
> The annoying thing here is that it's simply not true, especially in regards to men. It's still the norm to be told to suck it up, or you're not a real man.
It's also the norm to be told that you need to be vulnerable and share your trauma and you're lesser if you don't. Men get shamed for both not being enough of a victim and being too much of a victim, and have no winning move.
> It's also the norm to be told that you need to be vulnerable and share your trauma and you're lesser if you don't.
I think the norm now is that you should share your trauma with a therapist, to help heal. I can't imagine telling anyone to share their trauma, regardless of gender.
> and have no winning move.
This is a common incel talking point, and to be honest I don't think it has basis in reality. It's totally fine to share with a therapist and I don't know who would criticize someone for it. If a friend criticizes you for going to therapy, they aren't a friend.
Should you be able to also share with your friend? Yeah, but there's also the concept of trauma dumping, where you use your friends as a therapist, and that has its own problems. Sometimes folks aren't in the right mental space to hear your problems, especially depending on the context (like, were you abused as a child? maybe they were too).
> This is a common incel talking point, and to be honest I don't think it has basis in reality. It's totally fine to share with a therapist and I don't know who would criticize someone for it. If a friend criticizes you for going to therapy, they aren't a friend.
> Should you be able to also share with your friend?
Why did you leap from talking about incels to talking about friends? It's not friends that are the problem, it's partners, for whom it really does seem to be normal to both expect and demand that you share your weaknesses with them, and then get the ick when you do.
> Why did you leap from talking about incels to talking about friends? It's not friends that are the problem, it's partners
Because most of the people saying this kind of stuff tend to be incels, who famously don't have partners.
But my point about friends also applies to partners. Some stuff you need to work out in therapy. Your partner isn't your therapist, and treating them that way gives them the ick, especially early in a relationship.
You're forcing them to bear your trauma. You can expect people really far into a relationship to do this to a point (like nearing engagement, already engaged, or married), but even then it's more fair to share your trauma after you've learned how to bear it yourself, with the help of a professional. Partners should know about your past, especially as it may affect your behavior, but they shouldn't be forced to help you resolve your emotional issues.
That pressure is largely coming from other men. I don't know many women who want to date a guy who's unable to be vulnerable. I think if men made more space for each other to be something other than angry y'all would find life a lot more pleasant.
> as far as I can tell, someone can explain how they're the victim to anyone and everyone they come across and no one will care. I can't see how anyone emotionally or materially benefits from saying they're a victim. they may want sympathy but they will not get it.
This is true for a man, not true for a woman. Women in general get a lot of sympathy and things for saying they are a victim. Men just benefit from hiding it as you say though, there is no reason for men to show this.
everyone is the Magnus Carlsen of their own life, though. and humans are irreplaceable. sure, budget decisions are made that cause people to have to go find another employer. but there is no civilization without people in it.
> budget decisions are made that cause people to have to go find another employer
When those decisions are made en masse, incomes and even chosen careers can change dramatically. This is true even when there isn't massive changes in technology. I started my career during the time when many ended up leaving tech and not returning due to how competitive the job market became.
It's irrelevant who you are to yourself if you're nothing but a row in a database to the people looking for the earliest opportunity to replace you with a cheaper option. Those people are not acting in the best interests of long-term civilization.
Yeah tell that to the 1800s weavers obsoleted by machine looms. They didn't enjoy civilization's benefits after they (and their families) starved to death. One in four. Grim.
I really don't get this sentiment. 80% of orbital launches last year were Americans. The USA hasn't been this dominant in the space race since the 60s.
SpaceX exists because of commercial resupply but that was still a good deal for the government since it was cheaper than the shuttles or buying extra Soyuz cargo launches.
I don't know. I also don't know why that is relevant. Just because a business is selling a good or service to the government doesn't mean it's not competitive, dominant, efficient or really anything.
Capitalism is incredibly efficient this way and it really should be appreciated as being such an advantage. I wonder if it’s not a free advantage though. I suspect there’s a risk that it might diminish the ability to accomplish projects that aren’t compatible with capitalism. Ie. ROI isn’t sufficiently short term, ROI is socialized, no ROI at all, excessive risk.
An open question as I really don’t have an answer either way: what’s the last mega project the U.S. succeeded in completing that wasn’t directly tied to a short term business plan? Something for future generations or a major environmental project or a transportation or infrastructure project, etc.
I mean, falcon 9 reusability is a decent example, if 13 years from work starts to reusability is proven commercially viable counts as a long term business plan.
The private space industry doesn't belong to the US, it belongs to the billionaires.
We might even be better to have no one advancing space travel than to have only the billionaires doing it. At least then they can't find some way to use it to screw us over.
Thez certainly have some Falcon 9 clones in full scale testing - would not he surprised if they have it working in a year or two, there is just too much money on the table.
why do they always say "not only" or "it isn't just x but also y and z"? I hated that disingenuous verbosity BEFORE these LLMs out and now it'll all over the place. I saw a post on linked in that was literally just like 10+ statements of "X isn't just Y, it's etc..." and thought I was having a stroke
It's not just a shift of writing style. It symbolizes the dangerous entrapment of a feedback loop that feeds the worst parts of human culture back into itself.
They're turns of phrase I see a lot in opinion articles and the like. The purpose is to take a popular framing and reframe it along the lines of the author's own ideas.
LLMs fundamentally don't get the human reasons behind its use, see it a lot because it's effective writing, and regurgitate it robotically.
Lists have a simpler grammatical structure than most parts of a sentence. Semantic similarity makes them easy to generate, even if you pad the grammar with filler. And, thanks to Western rhetoric, they nearly always come in threes: this makes them easy to predict!
i cant imagine it's related. if it is related, hello Bloomberg News or whoever will be reading this thread because that would be a catastrophic breach of customer trust that would likely never fully return
reply