If it can be made small enough for use in mobile devices, I wonder whether the need for air/oxygen might require compromising on water-tightness. Would an oxygen permeable waterproof membrane allow enough through for operation? It would be interesting if instead of just for cooling, future high powered devices might also need a fan to feed the battery!
That's essentially how mega.io works. The browser encrypts before upload, and the key is added to the download URL. When downloading, the browser uses the key in the URL for local decryption.
The intention is for them to have no access to or knowledge of file contents. Since the key is the URL, and URLs are generally sent to the server by the browser, Mega could (presumably) get the keys when someone follows the download link.
I believe removing the key from the URL still works, the site just prompts for it when needed, but that could also make its way to Mega if they ever decided they wanted it. It seems like a decent approach for ease of use, but has some weaknesses if security is the main goal. Encrypting separately before upload is still a very good idea if it matters for whatever reason.
The key is in the part of the URL after the #, which currently is never sent to servers in any browser, but I suppose that could change.
The more secure method IMO to using the web client (which could have malicious JS pushed to it at any time), would be to use a standalone mega client that you control the source to and can verify yourself.
Yeah, my guess is that they roll out the updates to every client at the same time, and then have the client implement the n-1/2/whatever part locally. That worked great-ish until they pushed a corrupt (empty) update file which crashed the client when it tried to interpret the contents... Not ideal, and obviously there isn't enough internal testing before sending stuff out to actual clients.
Also, screwing over the minnows who are willing to spend some money is a huge gift to the competition. If another product grabs a large portion of the market, and now has more resources to innovate with, the whales may even start to switch over from the now mostly stagnant and overpriced option. I love(d) VMWare, but going forward it will have no place in any environment I control.
When you buy Enterprise SaaS products (DB, Cybersecurity, Cloud, Networking, Infra) these are backbone products.
If you can't afford to spend $300k a year on a product, you can't afford to hire the in-house staff needed to manage an OSS or internally built product.
There's a reason why Project Borg/K8s was invented by Google, not your local MSP, and why PostgreSQL's largest sponsors are AWS, Fujitsu, Google, Microsoft, NTT, and Broadcom.
The thing is = Broadcom is cutting off the MSPs, too.
Compare it with MS strategy since pretty much 1990 - they not only had offerings centered at small business, and medium business - they also didn't drop them once they truly got into the big league with Windows 2000 and Active Directory (yes, that was very much a watershed moment).
It can be a bit complicated to buy at the lowest end, but it's also been unspoken policy of them to somewhat tolerate software piracy so long as it didn't really impact sales - as well as offering great deals for people who could then get into track to get them more sales over time.
Some companies will cludge together things in house. Some people will learn and make MSPs and VARs. Some companies will become high value clients with white glove treatment from MS directly or designated support partners.
But they always made it so that they could get themselves an in without having to fight a big honking procurement contract to land a "whale".
As for 300k USD a year - outside of Silly Valley, it can be enough money to get custom linux distro developed and supported. Hell, with 300k USD/year, I could get a team to build and support a replacement for all core parts of VMware (compute, storage, networking). And if we didn't need to replicate same level because we were a smaller client and didn't need hyperconverged setup, we could do it for less.
> As for 300k USD a year - outside of Silly Valley, it can be enough money to get custom linux distro developed and supported
Erm, not really. One of my portfolio firms landed a multiyear runtime security contract in the Midwest around that much. And it was a mid-market prospect.
If a runtime security contract can land for that alone, including comprehensive Linux distro support will break 7 figures (at least based on the RHEL quote the customer has)
> it's also been unspoken policy of them to somewhat tolerate software piracy so long as it didn't really impact sales - as well as offering great deals for people who could then get into track to get them more sales over time
There's a reason why every vendor is moving to a SaaS and metric driven workflow. We can attribute which customers are break their contracts and gladly extracting a pound of their flesh for breaking the contract (as they would with us)
Even MSPs are consolidating, and there's a reason vendors like working with a Presidio type firm.
> If a runtime security contract can land for that alone, including comprehensive Linux distro support will break 7 figures (at least based on the RHEL quote the customer has)
The world does not end at US borders. Not everyone can exploit that, but it does not mean there's no market to be exploited.
> There's a reason why every vendor is moving to a SaaS and metric driven workflow. We can attribute which customers are break their contracts and gladly extracting a pound of their flesh for breaking the contract (as they would with us)
Microsoft might not have had the metrics originally, but to this day they play the game of getting people hooked on using their products licensed or not, and for all I heard or experienced they never went for inane extraction of pounds of flesh like Oracle does - which I suspect is because someone there might understand how it results in priority 1 becoming "how do we get rid of Oracle products", especially if the lock-in isn't too deep.
> Even MSPs are consolidating, and there's a reason vendors like working with a Presidio type firm.
A big issue with Broadcom strategy is that they are cutting off significant chunk of MSPs as well and preventing a healthy ecosystem of those with how they are changing licensing.
For #2 - Assuming it's not a spotting scope or similar, filtering IR wouldn't have much benefit. An IR filter might even hurt for the typical star gazing type usage, depending on the equipment used. Cameras for looking at things in the night sky often explicitly lack IR filters (often at massively increased cost) to increase sensitivity to any available light.
Very much this. Any IR filtering on a telescope would not be a very favored option. There is so much interesting stuff to see in the IR range. To your point about lack of IR filters, there are places that offer a service to have the IR filter removed from your DSLR. You can just add an IR filter to your lens to have it back to "normal".
This seems incorrect. Everywhere I look I hear effectively:
> All refractive optics require IR filters.
The reason seems to be it prevents "bloating" of bright points of light - eg stars, and increases contrast in the visible range by cutting off UV and IR (which CCDs are apparently sensitive to), so it is in fact desirable to have IR filtered out.
Possibly desirable for optimal image quality, sure, but taking pictures is not the only use for a telescope. Many things just require knowing how much light is present, and how that changes over time. Occultations are one such case which I have familiarity with. Objects are often so faint that every little bit of light is essential to improve SNR - https://occultations.org/
IR filters are generally pretty effective too, so just having one anywhere will do the trick unless you're dealing with a lot of light. Cameras which would be undesirably sensitive to IR would usually have the filter built in, basically right on top of the sensor. No need for added coatings on the telescope itself.
ESXi needs the RAID to be handled by another device, the simplest case is a hardware RAID card with disks locally attached to it. You can also attach remote disks/volumes from other systems, with or without RAID, over the network/SAN/etc using an HBA, special network card, or the software iscsi initiator stuff in ESXi. You can even have something like a windows server act as the iscsi volume host, and attach to it over the normal network if you don't really care about reliability. The ESXi OS will not appreciate it if you ever turn the remote volume host system off, or if the network drops out. It's really too bad the free and cheap ESXi licenses are going away, it was always so nice to work with...
It's not as easy as playing with more 'normal' stuff, but I usually use VMs on a local hypervisor like ESXi, or a bunch of old desktop/server hardware if I have enough space/power/cooling at the time. Winter helps, big stuff often runs loud and hot. To get specialized hardware when needed, ebay or 'trash' from work and such can help a lot.
Think of all the monetization possibilities - The AI could secretly teach your parrot to speak about how it would prefer a different (specific) brand of food, or that you should really buy nicer looking clothes from such and such store!
I find it hard to believe companies could resist such temptation for long, but agree that it does sound like it would be great for the birds (and possibly other pets) if done sanely without such contamination~
My experience is similar; I have my personal email, which has been in use since the early 00s, in almost plain text (@ replaced with <at>) on the about page of a fairly popular site which gets several million visits a month. I only get 5-10 spam messages/day, most of which are filtered without issue. I do get a decent amount of email, but not true 'spam'. It's mostly just crap I've signed up for over the years and can't be bothered to get rid of.
I honestly get more at my work email, which has never been posted anywhere... I wonder if spammers have started to assume the easy to get email addresses are suspicious or not valuable for various reasons.
The $30-50 zenni glasses/lenses in my experience are actually substantially clearer than the (absolute ripoff) $400-500 rayban ones. Same prescription, and the zenni ones even arrived quicker! Frame consistency is a bit of an issue though, I bought a few more cheap pairs with the 'same' frame a few years later and they changed the design subtly which made them fit worse.
