Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | throw0101c's commentslogin

On the etymology of the name of the project, see Greek mythology:

> Hermes (/ˈhɜːrmiːz/; Ancient Greek: Ἑρμῆς) is an Olympian deity in ancient Greek religion and mythology considered the herald of the gods. He is also widely considered the protector of human heralds, travelers, thieves,[2] merchants, and orators.[3][4] He is able to move quickly and freely between the worlds of the mortal and the divine aided by his winged sandals.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

Rough Roman equivalent:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(mythology)


> After first boot, go through a long list of things to deactivate so that one can experience at least some feeling of agency and privacy when using your own hardware.

The difference is that you can actually not set these things up: with Windows you often have to choice. Macs allow you to not have an iCloud account and run just fine without them, whereas to avoid a Microsoft cloud account there are magic CLI incantations that have to be invoked. And once you say "no", Apple generally leaves you alone.

I don't mind a bit of 'upsell' or informing (new) users of available offerings, as long as I get a choice.


> Macs allow you to not have an iCloud account and run just fine without them

Until you need to install an app through the App store. Even a free app will refuse to install without an iCloud account. Frustrating when you want something with a verified source, for me it was Wireguard, and don't want to build it locally.


> Until you need to install an app through the App store.

Do you have an example of needing to go through the app store? There's apple's apps, I guess.


That's on Wireguard.

If they can apt get on Ubuntu, they can likely brew install on macOS.


The issue with iCloud is that before you even know it, you're paying $9.99/mo. Since 200gb is quite low, the next tier up is 2tb for $9.99, but then you're essentially locked in. I can't view the iCloud price tiers as anything other than predatory.

> The issue with iCloud is that before you even know it, you're paying $9.99/mo.

Sounds like the issue is you.


> Sounds like the issue is you.

Oh, c'mon. The entire services division exists to sell you things like this. And they are very good at it - 25% of Apple's total revenue


> But what about builds that combine 8 of the 5090 with infiniband between boxes?

Why Infiniband ("IB")? If it's for RDMA, that is possible with certain Ethernet cards/chipsets as well. Certainly Mellanox, but Broadcom:

* https://techdocs.broadcom.com/us/en/storage-and-ethernet-con...

and Intel as well:

* https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...

Link level flow control or priority flow control needs to be supported on the switch ports as well.


> Apart from that, for the UNIX part, the source is available for quite a few components:

Strictly speaking, Apple can claim to ship a UNIX® operating system:

* https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm

* https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/


Yeah for a while they used that in marketing copy actually, but it's been a while I think.

> 512 option isnt worth it imo, you get severe slowdowns when weights are that large.

I think most people are getting 512 for running Chrome with a bunch of tabs open. /s


> 48.5 million to 23.5 million for Apple.

Curious to know how many of these sales are 'corporate purchases' for fleets versus 'personal purchases'. Given a choice, would most people prefer a Lenovo/PC or an Apple product? How many have Lenovo/PC IT-managed work machines and also (choose to) purchase a PC for personal use versus choosing an Apple?


I feel apple is huge mostly in the US, rest of the world apple has a reputation for being overpriced so people have mostly never used a Mac and if you have a lifetime of windows usage switching is jarring.. speaking from experience

> Given a choice, would most people prefer a Lenovo/PC or an Apple product?

I certainly would, because I demand Linux on all my computers. I can't stand the idea of being forced to sacrifice x% of my disk for things like "Apple Intelligence" or other bloatware that Apple decided I can't remove because it is a "system component." That, plus all the privacy and user control issues posed by an operating system effectively remotely controlled by a third party.


But everyone loves Bono?

> I think Apple's real problem is that they built machines that can last.

So do Toyota and Honda, and their sales seems be pretty steady.


Toyota and Honda have competitors that are pretty interchangeable, like each other.

> Toyota and Honda have competitors that are pretty interchangeable, like each other.

Do any of these competitors build "machines that can last" as much as Toyota and Honda? Does any other manufacturer have a longevity reputation of either of these two? What are the depreciation schedules of competitors (AIUI, T/H hold their value pretty well)?


Toyota and Honda have each other as direct competitors. If one of them sacrifices reliability, it's over. There are also second tier ones like Nissan making interchangeable cars, so if say Toyota stoops to Nissan's level, then they have to start selling at Nissan prices.

I would also say Ford, but their reputation for reliability applies only to their trucks.


When Ford and Mazda were working together they had some pretty reliable cars. My Focus outlasted two Hondas that I owned. The Hondas were "nicer" cars in terms of features and interior but mechanically the Ford kicked their asses.

Yeah, there was an era of good Focuses, also the Crown Vic. Crown Vic is probably their only car a random person will see and assume it's reliable, in the US at least.

Funny that Honda's hybrids seem to be licensing Toyota's eCVT magic, so it's quite a bit like Apple and Samsung, where they would be filling each other's pockets while also being at each other's throat.

Honda's hybrids are their own thing. They're mostly-series hybrids with one or two direct-drive gears for cruising speeds, as opposed to Toyota's parallel hybrid system.

In most countries without 100% tariffs and outright bans Toyota's sales are in decline because of competition from BYD.

For example, sales for the first half of 2026 vs first half of 2025 in Australia show:

Toyota is down 20% BYD is up 68%


> In most countries without 100% tariffs and outright bans Toyota's sales are in decline because of competition from BYD.

Is it because BYD is more reliable or 'just' cheaper?

There are a number of folks for who H/T would be their first pick if not for (a) waitlists and/or (b) price considerations. And there a lot of folks who don't necessarily care if the car will last 10 or 15(+) years because they'll replace it earlier that that, so as long as it's 'good enough' it's fine.


^ why are people downvoting this comment, they are objective facts.

Which is great to throw around numbers, but how are their reliability numbers? Before I throw out my 20 year old Honda for a BYD, how is the 20 year old BYD (or Telsa or Slate) doing? Unfortunately we don't know, though we're coming up on 29 years for Tesla soon.

Frag,

I am engaging in this from a "Logic 101" perspective. I saw a false premise used in an argument and I only wanted to point that out.

I have no actual position on cars brands or apple computers or any of that.


14 years, really, if you don’t count the roadster (which I think it is correct not to do).

The comment you're replying to is saying that in fair markets, BYD is taking market share away from Toyota even without the proven track record of reliability. Saying "But I wouldn't buy a BYD unless I knew it was reliable" is kind of missing the point.

In South Africa Toyotas (Hilux in particular) get stolen all the time because they are so reliable (and you get parts throughout Africa). So then you end up making new sales when people replace their stolen cars. One way to get around the problem for them I guess? /s :)


> Think about it, the key analogy is just terrible.

Because originally it was not really that much of an analogy: we only had what is now called "'symmetrical' encryption", but was just "encryption" back in the day (dating back to even Caesar perhaps). So the 'key idea' made complete sense: don't lose the one thing that could unlock things.

It was only more recently (in the relative, historical sense (~1970s)) that public and private "keys" became a thing, and the differentiation between symmetrical and asymmetrical encryption was made/invented.


The problem is arguably the symmetry in asymmetrical encryption - namely both "private" and "public" key are the same thing; the labeling "public" vs. "private" reflects your arbitrary choice of which of one you give away, and which one you keep for yourself.

It's surprising that we didn't invent any kind of physical padlock that accepts two keys, with the lock mechanism such that, when locked with one of the two keys, can only be unlocked by the other key. I can imagine obvious use cases for that, e.g. in shipping, but I guess this won't adopted because it makes the key management problem immediately obvious. But should such a thing existed, that would be the best (edit: just better - see my other comment explaining why "lock" is the dumb part here) analogy to draw terminology from.


> It's surprising that we didn't invent any kind of physical padlock that accepts two keys, with the lock mechanism such that, when locked with one of the two keys, can only be unlocked by the other key.

Key exchange blocks are basically this, except one of the two keys is perpetually locked inside the keyblock, and you must use the other to retrieve it (whereupon the key you just used is now locked in the block).

So not quite the same thing, but the closest example I know of.


> It's surprising that we didn't invent any kind of physical padlock that accepts two keys, with the lock mechanism such that, when locked with one of the two keys, can only be unlocked by the other key.

They do:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAriLDgpnY8

As mentioned in the video they're usually used in commercial settings. Also:

> One Way Cylinder Keying: Allows for the issuance of one key that can ONLY lock, one key that can ONLY unlock and one key that can BOTH lock and unlock the cylinder. Perfect for applications where one key holder should only have authorization to lock, while another should only have authorization to open and yet another can have the authorization to perform both functions. One way keyed products are supplied with 2 nylon head cut keys per product and 1 key order card per product.

* https://mangionelocksmiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mu...


> namely both "private" and "public" key are the same thing; the labeling "public" vs. "private" reflects your arbitrary choice of which of one you give away, and which one you keep for yourself.

It is not quite arbitrary. With RSA, you could potentially store only the modulus and the exponents, publishing one exponent and keeping the other one private (or making each privately known to different people, with both having the modulus). However, the way it is commonly stored is with the private key file includes both exponents and several other numbers, and the public exponent is usually 65537 which makes it easy to guess so you cannot effectively keep it secret. With some other kinds of cryptography (other than RSA), you can figure out the public key from the private key even without doing things like this.


We did/do have that kind of lock: A safe deposit box at a bank. To open it, you need two keys, one of which you have and one of which the bank has.

But that's the "you need two keys at the same time" case, which is different. I'm talking about "each of them can lock alone, but once locked, only the other one can unlock".

The real problem is that lock and key is a fundamentally dumb analogy for a process that scrambles something.


> There is currently no such status as "associate member" defined in the EU treates although the idea of special status for not being a complete member was floating around for a while now.

See perhaps Article 217 of TFEU:

> The Union may conclude with one or more third countries or international organisations agreements establishing an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action and special procedure.

* https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2012/art_217/oj/en...

An article going into it:

> Association is already an established form of EU external relations. The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Morocco entered into force on March 1, 2000. The EU–Ukraine Association Agreement entered fully into force on September 1, 2017. Their substantive commitments and institutional structures differ, reflecting the relationships negotiated by the respective parties (Council of the European Union, 2000; European External Action Service, 2017).

> Article 217 does not prescribe a uniform degree of integration. Depending on its provisions, an association agreement may establish economic commitments, regulatory cooperation, joint institutions, and procedures for implementing shared objectives. The associated country's rights arise from the agreement rather than from a standardized legal status conferred by Article 217 itself.

* https://www.diplomacyandlaw.com/post/canada-eu-associate-mem... §3


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

Search: