Posts by Doctor Syntax

Re: A strange business model anyway

And trustless.

T'other way around. The plaintiff loses money because it's a Ponzi scheme.

It's like a mousetrap. A mousetrap doesn't become a mousetrap when it snaps, it snaps because it's a mousetrap.

Re: A strange business model anyway

" I really don't understand this one."

I'm sure you do understand it. OTOH the entire operation seems to have depended on a ready supply of people who didn't and were prepared to back their lack of understanding with cash.

Yes, that point struck me as well. I suppose someone was feeling charitable.

They were largely Noah Webster's doing. Some of his offerings were even worse but didn't catch on.

Re: It's happened to me a few times...

Friend of management?

Re: It's happened to me a few times...

No mention of who the friend might have been?

"and the board are setting up a team specifically to audit managers who have the authority to both raise and approve payments."

Better late than never.

I said it's his best chance. I didn't say it would work.

Just about anything can be argued in court and often is. It doesn't necessarily work.

Re: Burn

"This is not an IT or tech issue, but a financial regulation issue."

But most of the points you then make are technical.

The point others have made that you ignore is that he waived due diligence so why is he making a fuss now other than to wriggle out of a bargain that he didn't just enter freely but insisted upon?

This isn't going to be like HP/Autonomy waived due diligence. In that case it was a US coumapny in US courts vs non-US and even then HP had to swallow their losses. This is one US company in US courts vs another.

Re: It's Off!

"Bar the lawsuits"

IOW it's only just getting going.

Re: BBC reporting Musk's bid is ended.

Not entirely. You also get a faceful of unwanted and pointless solicitations to log in for entirely unspecified benefits.

Re: Surprisingly honest wording from Twitter

Yup, the workers will get screwed.

As for the users & corporates, they'll go elsewhere. They were getting a freebie anyway. Maybe they'll revive MySpace or GeoCities.

For a supposedly "brilliant" man, he's remarkably ignorant of basic philosophy and logic rules.

Not necessarily. A failure to do so on Twitter's part is his best chance of wriggling out of the deal.

Re: Burn

"He's estimated to be worth more than $200bn"

That estimate is based on market value of his holdings. Realising that would be a different matter. If he sells a substantial chunk the market price goes down. That sort of estimate isn't worth the paper the money's not printed on.

Re: what that "drastic action" may be is unknown

This is a man with what amounts to a missile company. Would a near EoL battery pack make a reasonable warhead?

Re: Chilling effect ?

"I've known car salesmen like that."

Indeed.

Re: Where is the ROI?

"I have been seriously wondering what Musk would actually be buying."

I'm suddenly reminded of the Sgt Bilko classic "The Empty Store".

Good for the rest of the world.

Re: Crypto?

I thought it meant "hidden value". So well hidden as to be undiscoverable.

Re: "The large majority of IT pros in the UK – about 77 per cent – were not confident ..."

And was this the case?

Those weren't really pets anyway. They were reliable long-lived work horses, reliably running businesses day in, day out, week in week out.

But the real problem with your comment is that the bulk of tit is the inversion the actuality. The virtue of Sysv init is its transparency. What it's doing is written down. It's written down where it matters. It's writen down unambiguously. It's written down in the init scripts. There can be no conflict between what might be written down in some ambiguous or out-dated document and what's running. If there's any perceived weirdness it's in the mind of the perceiver who can't grok shell scripts.

Re: Not an expert, but...

As long as it's just an intit system, takes care not to break stuff and is transparent about what it's doing.

Re: Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.

It doesn't serve the needs of this laptop. The arguments I seem to hear are that it's to serve the interests of admins who want to bring up servers quickly (presumably so quickly they aren't going to spend time doing memchecks?). That seems to be where I hear the defences coming from.

Re: Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.

"It also standardises the boot system, whereas if RH had gone for one and Debian for another it would have complicated things."

There was a widely accepted boot system, sufficiently widely accepted to be looked on as a de facto standard. It was RH that changed that with the introduction of systemd. Preference for a standardised boot system is an argument against Red Hat and systemd.

Re: People are awful

If I were to meet him (assuming I could find someone to pay for me to go on "the conference circuit") would that somehow undo the damage? The primary issue is not actually him, it's the utter mess that he's produced, or at least that's generally attributed to him and which, AFAIK, he hasn't denied responsibility for. There are others to share the blame of foisting this stuff on us in the way Jake has outlined above. Nevertheless the responsibility stops with him.

It matters not whether he's approachable or not. For all i know "he" could have been a group of people hiding behind a nom de plume and it wouldn't have made any difference. It is the technical differences that matter.

Re: Depart, I say, and let us have done with you.

Red Hat's focus is on servers.

I wonder if his team will actually survive. Even if it doesn't I don't hold out much hope for repairing the damage.

Or maybe some WONTFIXes now become WILLFIXes

Re: Direct your ire...

"future action"

Sir, I admire your optimism.

Re: 37 Billions

"It wasn't reasonable to pay Deloittes £1K/day for outsourced and mostly clueless call centre droids who had nothing to do. It wasn't reasonable to pay £6K+/day for senior Deloittes staff who have no medical expertise and knew fuck all about pandemics or public health."

Nor to be apparently unaware that the experise already existed at local level.