I don't understand how this product can be productively useful. It looks like any other AI chat bot, but I remember hearing people speak very positive things about it. What am I missing?

You're missing nothing with this new ui. For me very good autocomplete + stuff than can be automated with an agent on the side while coding on the other was the peak. I want the control, control to activate/disable autocomplete and agents, I don't want to follow an imposed workflow

In IPv6 the smallest 'subnet' is /64 if I recall correctly.

It's weird having a subnet size equal to a complete IPv4 Internet worth of IPv6 Internets but I believe the rationale was that you would never in practise run of out IPs in your subnet. A lot of Enterprise IPv4 headaches are managing subnets that are not correctly sized (organic growth, etc.). IPv6 is always routable for the same reason (companies reusing RFC1918 making connecting networks a pain).

There are different headaches with IPv6 - such as re-IPing devices if they move subnet - i.e. move physical location, or during a failover etc.

I'm not sure what the best practise there is as many enterprises don't use IPv6 internally. In my experience anyway.

The big issue I see is every enterprise has a solid numbering plan for RFC1918 networks. Unfortunately, many of them have the SAME plan, and when peering networking between SaaS vendors and customers was more popular (now, of course, privatelink seems to be the move) we constantly ran into conflicts. There's still the risk of conflict with IPv6, but I think if numbering decisions are made thoughtfully, they can be avoided.

There's no risk at all if you're using your own allocated prefix, because those are managed by IANA/RIRs/LIRs to not overlap.

Incidentally, if you find yourself experiencing an RFC1918 clash, one simple way of fixing it is to use NAT64 to map the remote side's RFC1918 into a /96 from your v6 allocation. You can write the last 32 bits of a v6 address in v4 format, so this leads to addresses like 2001:db8:abc:6401::192.168.0.10 and 2001:db8:abc:6402::192.168.0.10, which don't overlap from your perspective.

(If you wanted something simpler to type you could put them at e.g. fd01::192.168.0.10... but then you do start running the risk of collisions with other people who also thought they could just use a simple ULA prefix.)

I donated and don't receive any spam - you could perhaps try reviewing mail list settings / unsubcribe.

Why is that disgusting? That's an extremely common revenue stream for charities. I know some charities where the majority of their income is derived from wills.

Consider the situation where someone who’s geriatric and potentially losing their mental faculties is getting hit with messages like that. Catch them at the wrong moment and they could well change their will, despite it not being what they would have wanted.

If the person is geriatric and losing their mind, there is much worse on the internet than a suggestion about their will when making a donation.

It's a jarring, off-putting email to receive after making your first ever online donation.

These specs look enormously cheaper than doing it with dell servers. The last quote I had for a bog standard dell server was $50k and only if bought in the next few days or so. The prices are going up weekly.

So what’s the catch? If it seems too good to be true it probably is.

These are "unsupported" configurations. Nvidia/AMD discourage running multiple gaming/workstation cards and encourage customers to buy $500K SXM/OAM servers.

Care to expand further?

In 25 years I have never seen anyone use Microsoft Access in earnest. For the overwhelming majority of users I do not think this is an issue. The last time I used it was when studying for CLAiT Plus.

We used it at Altitude Software, as one of the possible database backends for our platform, there were indee enough customers that it was a requirement to also support it on our ODBC configuration.

During the MS-DOS => Windows transitions, some folks moved from doing xBase development into VB, or Access, instead of CA Objects or FoxPro.

The vast majority of office use at my work is in the browsers because the files are stored in Sharepoint. It seems to work well enough for basic needs (no macros and fairly simple formulas in excel etc.)

I have a non-technical friend in finance who uses the Desktop versions of Excel for most of their work and they say it crashes nearly every day losing work.

Every time SharePoint/Teams decides to open a document in the browser, I cry a little. Misalignments in Word, broken basic keyboard movements in Excel, terrible performance across the board.

Excel is pretty stable.. I guess it could be those specific sheets doing something odd.

I think it's a factor of things, but Excel isn't as stable as it once was. My friends spreadsheets include:

- Row count ~100k - Column count ~1k - The usual vlookup, etc. formulae. - Oracle extensions that sync tables to databases in the cloud.

Just like in many other cases, in-proc extensions might be easier to implement, or have lower resource demands than OS IPC, but than it has such unpleasent experiences, I bet those Oracle extensions in C, C++, COM, are to blame.

How far do you go, how do you use the private key to sign something if you can't keep it anywhere?

TPM

You never have the private key, only the ability to ask something to encrypt/sign something

The most typical end-game is using a HSM-backed cloud product, generating the PK in the HSM (it never leaves), and making calls across the network to the key vault service for signing requests.

This is a hard tradeoff between availability and compliance. If the cloud service goes down or you have an internet issue, you would lose the ability to sign any new tokens. This is a fairly fundamental aspect of infrastructure so it's worth considering if you absolutely must put it across the wire.

Its a spectrum, like all things.

It crosses from everyone has the keys like in this example, to centralising a signing service using just software, or using something like KMS or CloudHSM, or YubiHSM, or going big and getting a HA Luna (or similar) HSM setup.

Are you saying intelligence is inherently unsafe? That seems like a pretty wild conclusion and I can't see any logical way to jump to your opinions.

I'm saying the capability to reason about novel situations is in tension with guaranteeing it never produces harmful outputs. We are talking about contradictory design constraints.