Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | reverserdev's commentslogin

Hasn't Apple recently made a deal with Intel?

Trust is not binary — it is a spectrum.

Anyone making a claim that trust will be 0% based on a single thing is obviously oversimplifying the situation. Trust is built on behavior, reputation, time, repeatability, etc.

Trust is subjective and relative. If Alice doesn’t trust Eve, that doesn’t automatically mean that Bob doesn’t trust Eve. That usually requires both Alice and Bob to similar experiences or Bob must have a trust relationship with Alice.


Trust also changes over time. One CEO change and a company can change overnight thus causing all trust to evaporate. Normally CEOs are aware of this and don't change things and so trust transfers, but one mistake and you lose trust. It takes a lot to build back trust, but a few years of proving worthy of trust and it starts to come back. If your competitors violates trust in the mean time customers are more likely to risk you, and if you prove trustworthy the customers are likely to stay.

There are other factors than trust as well - the US government really wants intel fabs to take off and they may be applying pressure that we are not aware of. It could well be that Apple is willing to risk Intel because the US government will buy a lot of macs/iphones but only if they CPU is made in the US. (this would be a smart thing for the US todo for geopolitical reasons)


Libraries with books are likely considered public goods right?

Why not an LLM datacenter if it also offers information? You could say it's the public library of the future maybe.


Not all libraries are publicly owned or accessible. Most are run by local municipalities because they wouldn't exist otherwise.

Data centers clearly can exist without being owned by the public.


So can bookstores.


Some random person I met dropped their phone in a river, just after arriving in a foreign country. He bought a new phone, but getting back to his phone number was not easy or possible for him (while in a foreign country). If he had an eSIM it would have quickly solved the problem for him. Instead he had to wait until he got home to pop in a new SIM card.

I learned from this experience that maybe eSIM is a good idea and I switched immediately upon hearing this person's story. Did I miss something?


If you damage your phone, as opposed to completely loosing it, the sim card is almost never damaged.

So changing phones can be done without any customer support or web forms or calls to service provider etc.

Actually, every phone I ever had eventually got replaced this way, I am still using the original sim card from years ago.


I should have clarified that he dropped the phone in the river AND he did not attempt to get it back from the river, thus the SIM card is considered lost as well :)


A colleague of mine was in a similar situation except he had an eSIM. It didn’t help because AT&T would not provision him a new eSIM internationally.

As another anecdotal data point, I was able to switch phones internationally using a physical SIM by just putting it in the new phone.


> If he had an eSIM it would have quickly solved the problem for him.

Except many carriers have you jump through hoops to activate an eSIM on a new device. Here in the comments one person has to receive a new QR over snail mail.


Indeed I became aware thanks to this thread!

For me it was 10 mins through my provider's app (and I was also doing it internationally)


> For me it was 10 mins through my provider's app (and I was also doing it internationally)

What verification processes did you have to go through?

If it's simple username/password, that could mean that your number could be trivially hijacked by a determined enough attacker.


FWIW, I dropped my phone in the Chicago River. Crossing a drawbridge, I pulled out my phone to check the time. It slipped and fell - right into the gap in the middle. I peered through the gap to see if was there, and was able to see the splash it made.

Neither SIM nor eSIM would have helped.

In that case, I waited to get home (I didn't live in Illinois) and got a new SIM by mail.


> in a foreign country [...] If he had an eSIM it would have quickly solved the problem for him. Instead he had to wait until he got home to pop in a new SIM card.

Are you sure that his carrier allows activating an eSIM while roaming? Mine definitely doesn't, which means that if I break my phone while abroad, I lose access to online banking.


Funny how everyone shits on Nvidia's monopoly when we've got Google walking around after winning a monumental antitrust case regarding their Android/Chrome/Google information monopoly.

How do the market regulators allow that?


My first grade teacher used to claim that two wrongs didn't make a right.


> How do the market regulators allow that?

Same way I reckon. Both are bad.

> Funny how everyone shits on Nvidia's monopoly when we've got Google walking around after winning a monumental antitrust case regarding their Android/Chrome/Google information monopoly.

... are you implying people around here don't give google flak for monopolistic business practices? That doesn't square with my experience, here.


Market regulators are working hard to ensure regulatory capture for the big players.


One wrong doesn't make another wrong right.


Fabrication also depends on what is designed, no? There is a coupling between the two?


Not in most cases. Apple, AMD, and most other chip makers lack a fab. The design what the fabs can make, but they don't have much input into the fabs. Someone makes a fab, and you make something it can made.

Of course things are never that neat. I have no doubt the large players have input into the fabs - we have no idea what. However the two teams are still different companies, when the fab and chip design are the same company there is the possibility of more cooperation (or less - we don't know. In the best case for both there is more when it is all internal, but we don't know if this is the best case)


I am considering more dynamic "tutors", since this rudimentary version got so much attention! :)

What do you have in mind when you say "step through" the code? Like follow your scrolling of the source code?


Something as simple as an LLM prompt that explains what the file does would go a long way I think.


Can you please elaborate what exactly is the problem with the first sentence?

"The kernel isn't a process—it's the system. It serves user processes, reacts to context, and enforces separation and control."

This is actually based on "The Kernel in The Mind" by Moon Hee Lee. You are welcome to provide feedback.


> This is actually based on "The Kernel in The Mind" by Moon Hee Lee.

This looks like a really interesting resource. Can anybody here vouch for its accuracy or usefulness? I can't find a ton about it online. The fact that it's only published as a series of LinkedIn posts, or a PDF attached to a LinkedIn post, does not fill me with confidence - but I guess we can't expect kernel devs to know how to create websites?


Is it or is it not AI generated? That's all I said, and you didn't deny it.


Focus! Whether it's AI generated or not is a form of ad hominem. Attack the content, not how it came to be.


Calm down. You had the answer served on a platter.

From "The Kernel in the Mind":

> The Kernel Is Not a Process. It Is the System.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kernel-mind-moon-hee-lee-miwz...

It's X but Y came from elsewhere.


> This isn’t a guide to writing kernel code. It’s an effort to understand how the Linux kernel thinks.

> not of function calls, but of how the kernel responds

> The kernel is not a process but the very foundation

> The Linux kernel is not just a set of subsystems—it is a layered system that enforces structure at runtime

> This flexibility does not come from runtime detection or dynamic reconfiguration. It comes from structure.

> Identity is not discovered at runtime. It is defined before execution begins.

> The kernel doesn't view memory as a simple map, but as a responsibility

> Memory Is Not a Place. It’s a System.

> Memory safety relies on disciplined handoffs, not centralized control or type enforcement.

> The Linux kernel goes beyond executing code; it enforces strict control

> Kernel execution is not linear code—it’s structured control

This legitimately hurts to read. I think I'm going to have an aneurysm if I continue.


Do you have any constructive feedback on how I can fix it?


Have a human write it instead of ChatGPT.


I cannot reproduce. Would you mind sharing a bit more? The certificate is handled by Cloudflare Pages.


My bad, the network I was connected to didn't like the certificate for some reason. Cool project!


Thanks for the observation about mobile responsiveness, I will improve it!


Thanks for sharing OP! It seems quite some people liked it, so I'll be listening to feedback and see what to do next. :)


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

Search: