You can deficit spend indefinitely as long as your deficit percentage is below your economic growth percentage. That keeps the total debt as percentage of the economy stable and the amount of tax you need to service the debt a stable percentage of your total tax.
If you do that it can be a good idea. It's a way to accelerate investment. It can also be a good idea to modulate your deficit in a cycle counter to the economy so that it acts as a stabilizer.
The US has been failing on all these. The deficits are too large and are high both in good and bad times. Eventually that breaks things.
Infinite growth is possible as long as your economy trades things that are not physically constrained. Art can grow in value over time without hitting any constraints. And even if your economy doesn't grow in real terms, to service debt all you need is for the economy to grow in nominal terms, to have inflation. And even if your economy stagnates completely and has zero inflation you just need to bring your deficit to zero to maintain the debt level. Every year you can just pay the interest on the debt from taxes and your debt as percentage of the economy stays stable without ever paying down the debt.
What you are describing is what's called free float market cap and is generally what market indices use to weigh stocks. That way you're only trying to replicate the market of stocks that are actually available to trade. There's nothing new about SpaceX in that respect, plenty of companies have float much lower than their total.
> If I was an APT, compromising Tailscale would be priority number 1!
Crowdstrike would be at a much higher priority. They already have a cloud connected root console to all the machines in entire corporations. Compromising your network is small potatoes compared to that.
> The computer I'm writing this on has 64 GB of RAM, 1024 times as much. By comparison I have a 20-core Intel CPU with up-to 3GHz speed or somewhere around there, even pretending each core could run at that max speed simultaneously (which they can't), that's only 133-times as much CPU power.
Over that time CPUs have also increased their instructions per clock by 3 to 4 times, so the comparison is a bit closer than that. 5Ghz in CPUs is also common these days which would make it even closer. RAM has also improved in more than just total size though.
I completely agree. With everything from Out-Of-Order execution, deep pipelines, SIMD, huge CPU cache, etc... I would be surprised if the performance increase is not considerably more than 1024x.
It is a funny thing, while yes the task of 'put pixel on screen' is the same. They are so wildly different in how they function, I don't know how to even quantify it. 15,000x may be an understatement.
It was still more secure than the default if I understand this correctly. On resume from suspend the laptop would still be locked by the encryption key and without access to the disk even if you can somehow circumvent the lock. The only insecurity was that somewhere in the kernel memory the key still exists so if you can somehow extract that from the live system you can unlock it.
Yes, you are right: LUKS encryption protests your data at rest. An attacker which steals your disk can only gain little, like the information that you have used LUKS (unless you put your LUKS headers elsewhere, separated from the disk) and perhaps disk and disk sector usage statistics.
+ battery too. I've wondered if a mini pc with battery would make for a good form factor. I often move between places where I have a desk with a screen but still use a laptop because I want to just suspend and resume. If a mini pc had a small battery just to hold its RAM while suspended I could move between places and just plug in a single USB-C cable and have my full workstation up and running. The thermals could be better than in a laptop and having a built-in UPS better than with a desktop. But last time I checked no one packaged things like that.
There's the Khadas Mind series of mini pcs. They have a proprietary docking interface though. Agree that it would be great if this form-factor was more common.
That seems wrong. If you have a way to maintain enough propulsion for long enough you can escape the gravity well at any arbitrarily low speed. You "just" need to maintain that speed long enough for the escape velocity from the gravity well to go below it as it diminishes with distance from the mass.
There seem to be some 15 inch all-in-ones but these days if what you want is a small form factor the answer is surely a laptop. Even if you're just going to keep it on the same desk forever that's what you'd get if you want 15 inch or smaller.
I could see a “portable” all in one being successful. Something closer to the first Mac where it had a handle in the back with a built in screen. In the 10-14” screen range. Back in the day, my mom had an internet appliance (light browsing and email only) which was close to what we’re taking about. She loved it.
You’re of course looking at all laptop parts, but the form factor would be part of the appeal. Then again, an iPad dock would also probably cover this form factor for about the same cost.
If you do that it can be a good idea. It's a way to accelerate investment. It can also be a good idea to modulate your deficit in a cycle counter to the economy so that it acts as a stabilizer.
The US has been failing on all these. The deficits are too large and are high both in good and bad times. Eventually that breaks things.