Persia as a word for the whole region is an exonym, derived of the name of a single province and the people who lived in it. Iran is the endonym that the people living in the area have understood to refer to the entire area for millennia.
It's like calling the Netherlands Holland. Everyone understands what you are talking about, but it is definitely not very precise, and some people from the region might take an exception to it. Fine for conversational use, not so much in academic literature. You might talk about the Persian Empire when referring to the Achaeminids or the Sassanids, but that comes with the understanding that while the ruling class is Persian, they rule over an empire of people, many of which are Iranian but not Persian.
Persia is an exonym, but Greece and Egypt are also exonyms (Greeks and Greece was how Romans called them, not how they called themselves, while Egypt was the name used by Greeks, not by the natives of Egypt).
When talking about ancient people and countries, it is hard to avoid using exonyms, as they are usually much better known than whatever names may have been used by natives. In many cases such names have been discovered only relatively recently, during the last century, so they are known mostly by professionals and they are rarely found in popular literature. Moreover, frequently for the native names there is a much greater uncertainty about their original pronunciation than for exonyms.
Other such examples include confusing Monte Carlo for Monaco and saying Bohemia when talking about Czechia. During the cold war, the word Russia often got to stand in for the entirety of the Soviet Union.
And then there's the opposite: using America for the USA. As an "American" I always found this weird, because Canada and Mexico and how about South America... Then there's Sp. norteamericano used in Mexico as if Mexico were not on the North America continent.
> You might talk about the Persian Empire when referring to the Achaeminids or the Sassanids, but that comes with the understanding that while the ruling class is Persian
not exactly. Persians are also majority of people in what's now called Iran (just like Russians are majority in Russia, this is the same naming pattern as for many countries) and renaming is a result of an invasion. Talking about "ancient Iran" before it Muslims arrived is talking about Persia
This is true of a lot of foreign countries where people somewhat exaggerate the security issues, but really isn't of PNG. It's the kind of place where it's not just the foreigners who need a thick security layer to travel, there are plenty of places in the country where no official government representatives could safely travel to without basically bringing the army.
The lawyers are the ones talking, and they have to come up with a fair valuation.
If SpaceX pays too much for it, other SpaceX shareholders have a case against SpaceX leadership. If xAI accepts an offer that is too low, other xAI shareholders have a case against xAI leadership. Given that the leadership is basically the same people, they are very well incentivized to come up with a valuation that is as fair as possible.
And this is not just theoretical, Musk has already been sued successfully once on a similar case, when his companies gave out too much free support to the boring company.
Otoh, he is clearly impulsive and doesn’t think the rules apply to him. I am guessing, if one approach benefits him personally the most, there will be enormous pressure to achieve that outcome.
It’s “unserious” in the sense that it’s undisciplined. Don’t those engineers have things to do at Tesla, rather than going to poke around at a social media website codebase? If I were a Tesla shareholder I’d be pretty annoyed - how is doing so advancing making a better car?
I think the implication is that you should own multiple client devices capable of SSHing into things, each with their own SSH keypair; and every SSH host you interact with should have multiple of your devices’ keypairs registered to it.
Tuna-Fish said that instead of backing up the keys from your devices, you should create a specific backup key that is only ever used in case you lose access to all your devices.
This is indeed best practice because it allows you to alert based on key: if you receive a login on a machine with your backup key, but you haven't lost your devices, then you know your backup was compromised. If you take backups of your regular key then it would be much more difficult to notice a problem.
My point was that one of the devices would be your (cold) backup — you'd e.g. get an (ideally passphrase-protectable) smart-card; read off its pubkey; register that pubkey with all your remote systems/services; and then put the smart-card itself into a fire safe / safe-deposit box at a bank / leave it in trust with your lawyer / etc.
Note that you would never need to go get the smart-card just to perform incremental registration between it and a new remote host/service. You just need its pubkey, which can live in your password manager or wherever.
And yet, if your house burns down, you can go get that smart-card, and use it to get back into all your services.
And yet also, unlike a backup of another of your keys, if you find out that someone broke into your house and stole your safe, or robbed your bank, etc, then you can separately revoke the access of the pubkey associated with the smart-card, without affecting / requiring the rolling of the keys associated with your other devices. (And the ideal additional layer of passphrase protection for the card, gives you a time window to realize your card has been taken, and perform this revocation step, before the card can be cracked and used.)
Indeed, as the sibling comment mentions, this is vaguely similar to a (symmetrically passphrase-encrypted) backup of a unique extra KPI keypair onto a USB stick or somesuch.
The major difference, though, is that because a backup of a key is truly "just data", an attacker can copy off the encrypted file (or image the raw bytes of the encrypted USB disk), and then spawn 10000 compute instances to attempt to crack that encrypted file / disk image.
Whereas, even when in possession of the smart-card, the attacker can't make 10000 copies of the data held in the smart-card. All they can do is attack the single smart-card they have — where doing so may in turn cause the smart-card to delete said data, or to apply exponential-backoff to failed attempts to activate/use the key material. The workflow becomes less like traditional password cracking, and more like interrogating a human (who has been explicitly trained in Resistance-to-Interrogation techniques.)
To me that just sounds like creating obstacles for myself to get access to my system when I desperately need to. I keep a backup of my work pc keys on Google Drive and I have zero anxiety about that.
Why should that change TSMC decision making even a little?
The reality is that TSMC has no competition capable of shipping an equivalent product. If AI fizzles out completely, the only way Apple can choose to not use TSMC is if they decide to ship an inferior product.
A world where TSMC drains all the venture capital out of all the AI startups, using NVidia as an intermediary, and then all the bubble pops and they all go under is a perfectly happy place for TSMC. In these market conditions they are asking cash upfront. The worst that can happen is that they overbuild capacity using other people's money that they don't have to pay back, leaving them in an even more dominant position in the crash that follows.
I believe this advantage is currently mostly theoretical, as the code ultimately gets compiled with LLVM which does not fully utilize all the additional optimization opportunities.
LLVM doesn't fully utilize all the power, but it does use an increasing amount every year. Flang and Rust have both given LLVM plenty of example code and a fair number of contributors who want to make LLVM work better for them.
Normal lithium-ion batteries have a liquid electrolyte. It's not water, but some carbohydrate. During draining and charging, ions travel between the electrodes through the electrolyte.
They definitely didn't. Apple was starting from scratch in the market, and the original iPhone did a whole bunch of things it shouldn't have, making it needlessly expensive to build for the hardware it included. This is partly why Nokia initially dismissed it, as soon as it was on the market, teardowns showed that it was basically an amateurish prototype that was pushed to production, internally much worse than you'd expect from a mature company that was used to building consumer electronics. The N95 could be sold for less because it was legitimately a lot cheaper phone to build.
Then only a year later the iPhone 3G came out, and it was a rough wake-up for Nokia. Because that one was actually a well-built sane design.
That's a weird way to describe "enough democratic senators dissented from the party line to let a CR pass".
Unlike the republicans, the democrats have never been able to maintain that kind of tight control over members. The CR didn't pass because "democrats" chose to let it. It passed because the republicans were able to individually influence 5 additional democrats to change their votes, in addition to the 2 who had always voted for it.
The kind of tight control that the republican party has had recently is very new and hasn't really happened before in the US.
The ones that voted for it were all magically the ones that were either not seeking re-election or ones that are not up for election the next term.
This is a hell of a coincidence.
I don't mean to call out the Democrats as the only one who do this (on HN you simultaneously can't point out a party for something because then somehow you're being partisan, but you're also damned if you don't give an example, so it puts you in a tough spot). Just a most recent thing I've noticed.
Up until recently even on HN Schumer was nearly universally damned for letting it happen or being behind it in his capacity as a minority leader. Perhaps without evidence, and perhaps baselessly. But it's telling that as soon as I point it out in a slightly different context, then suddenly it's an opinion worthy of greying out.
>Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, continued to face criticism from members of his own party after he reversed course and allowed the stopgap spending bill to come to a vote.
It's obviously not a coincidence. I don't see how it is any kind of evidence for taking orders from above. People who don't have to face their voters any time soon (or ever) obviously have more leeway on making deals they might not like.
Passing a CR has required 60 votes in the senate since 1974. Despite this, and 60-vote majorities being very rare, shutdowns remained rare and typically very short for a very long time. This was not because the parties got together and made a deal; it was because it was common for senators in both parties to make side deals across the aisle to support their own pet projects. Having the discipline to force the senators of a party to not make such deals is something that only the republicans have managed, and only very recently.
People are angry at the democrats for being weak and a mess, but that is the normal state of affairs in US party politics.
Persia as a word for the whole region is an exonym, derived of the name of a single province and the people who lived in it. Iran is the endonym that the people living in the area have understood to refer to the entire area for millennia.
It's like calling the Netherlands Holland. Everyone understands what you are talking about, but it is definitely not very precise, and some people from the region might take an exception to it. Fine for conversational use, not so much in academic literature. You might talk about the Persian Empire when referring to the Achaeminids or the Sassanids, but that comes with the understanding that while the ruling class is Persian, they rule over an empire of people, many of which are Iranian but not Persian.
reply