Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | valenciarose's comments login

The quietly is less about communication with the public than it is communication with the non-profits about the gifts. No weeks/months-long crafting of the gift announcement message. No extended negotiation about how the gift is going to be used. Hint, right now every non-profit is hurting for unrestricted genop money.

It's incredibly refreshing.


What does genop mean? I couldn't find it on Google


I believe it means 'general operations' - Ms Scott's gifts have been unrestricted, with atypically light reporting requirements. Basically, she's trusting the non-profit recipients of her donations to know how to spend their money to accomplish their missions and isn't making them bend over backwards to appease her.


General operations if I’m presuming jargon. Which I think is the bigger deal with her donations than anything else.


A guess: general operations


Securities lending, OTC Swaps, and highly favorable margin rates (although the underlying economics of this are actually driven by the securites lending business)


It is safe for all but the shortest-term investors to ignore the ramblings of chartists. Intel has serious challenges in several markets, all of which are understandable without squinting at day-to-day price fluctuations.


It’s a necessary complexity, particularly given that Mozilla predates the existence of Benefit Corporations by a dozen years. As a purely non-profit corporation, having most of your revenue come from business income is a big problem. As a for-profit, director’s fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders can get in the way of pursuing a public good mission. And, collaboration with for profit orgs gets a little less regulatory scrutiny if a non-profit is in control.


> As a purely non-profit corporation, having most of your revenue come from business income is a big problem.

What's the exact problem?


This is a much more perceptive set of comments than I originally understood them to be. Thank you.


You assume all bytes are eight bits, but that hasn’t always been the case. Machines with variable byte sizes were relatively common in the 70s and early 80s. This is why so many RFCs use the word octet instead of byte.


Yeah, and I also remember when real parity checking was replaced with a special pseudo parity-pretend chip on many SIM modules. It was so designed to especially fool motherboards into thinking that parity was actually enabled and working when it was not.

Yes, even the memory business had its sleazy carpetbaggers.


Even now there are hardware architectures with non-8-bit bytes, typically DSPs.


I remember that. A 36 bit computer makes no sense until you realize people used octal a lot back then. And grouped switches in 3's instead of 4's.


The artificial resource constraints created by IPv4 are a substantial barrier to entry. Prediction: we’re going to see a court case that forces a mandatory retirement of IPv4 sometime in the next 15 years.


A court case by whom against whom?


I think that IP4 will see itself out when service degradation becomes generally noticeable. CGNAT is really painful to operate.

Remember the IE6 banners? There will be a time in ten years (haha it's always ten years!) when you'll see "Our site runs with degraded performance over IPv4. Please contact your administrator."


>CGNAT is really painful to operate.

For whom? There are lots of providers (for example Huawei) that offer turnkey solutions for ISPs to painlessly roll out CGNAT.


CGNAT means extra memory and extra processing on network nodes. Less freedom to switch routes. Operating something extra that can only degrade performance, but not improve, is painful.

The current situation is that the ISP can lessen load on their CGNAT solutions by providing IP6.


> CGNAT is really painful to operate

It also makes it much more difficult for customers to stress your upload bandwidth though.


You mean to say customers get a degraded experience on CGNAT.


Yup. If you can't host a webserver from your home IP, that's one less thing your ISP needs to worry about taxing their network. It's sad the incentives just aren't aligned for a decentralized internet.


The word Modern absolutely does not mean new, recent, or contemporary in the context of design (or really in reference to any visual presentation). The design of Walkman was innovative and new when it came out, but at no point in time did it qualify as Modern.

Modernism, as applied to the design of tools and other useful objects, was codified by Dieter Rams half a century ago. The recent resurgence of Modernism as applied to computer software and hardware is not the result of inevitable progress. It’s the result of Steve Jobs deliberately choosing Modernism in the early 90s (although this wasn’t apparent in products until his return).

https://ifworlddesignguide.com/design-specials/dieter-rams-1...


Aesthetic evolution is a fact in user interfaces as much as it is in other functional objects like automobiles, furniture, and architecture. Priorities in trade-offs between things like information density and rapid visual navigation are also subject to this kind of change. Part of that evolution is influenced by technical context, such as what has become possible or practical that wasn’t before. Part of that evolution is influenced by cultural context, including both art and the aesthetics of physical objects (or software). Successful UI in Japan is strikingly different than it is elsewhere, even allowing for differences in language.

One of the things that all user interfaces do is marshal user attention, and newness or freshness is one tool for that. That can be used to advantage or disadvantage users, but it is a constant pressure for change in user interfaces.

The term Modern in user interfaces tends to translate as “inspired by the Functionalist school of Industrial Design, particularly as exemplified by Dieter Rams at Braun and Apple’s Industrial Design team under Jonny Ive”. There’s functional value to freshness, so the definition isn’t static, but the term Modern means something other than new or contemporary.

It isn’t a waste of time for producers and critics (in the neutral sense) of user interfaces to learn some art history, architectural history, and history of Industrial Design.


All of my friends who work in crypto loathe PGP. None of them mention the implementation as their primary area of concern. Some of them mention the implementation as an unsurprising sequela to the kitchen sink of “capabilities” PGP attempts to cover. It has, by design, a nearly fractal surface area for users to compromise their security and for developers to make subtle implementation errors.


If you want to do store and forward messaging on a federated network then PGP is pretty much it.

So if all those cryptographers don't like it then they should design something better. It is unlikely they will be able to come up with something simpler.


I wish Autocrypt(.org) would be PGP's future. Zero conf, only syncing keys between devices is something you'd have to do manually.

Those six trust levels, what were they smoking?


The fractal surface area of PGP is why it has continued to enjoy such widespread adoption. People need to secure their messages and other systems are far too ridged or specialized for their needs.

Is PGP/GnuPG's horable to use or develop for? Absolutely. However, unless your friends are willing to step up and build something that's flexible enough to cover all our usecases, PGP will continue to see adoption and projects like this will continue to pop up.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: