Wild that this about behavior from 7 years ago - imagine additional fines that will need to be paid in 7 years for current market manipulation by some of these giant players (incl in US). Things are moving really slow. The amounts are also just a drop in the bucket...

Splitting up Google seems more and more likely, probably would raise the overall market cap and drive innovation

Wonder how liability for actions taken by Google and other tech companies would be divvied up if some of them split into smaller companies.

A lot of people wrongly believe this means no firewall. If you don't use firewalls (yes, even for web traffic and SaaS, limit who can access your stuff), you are doing something wrong.

It means end of the classic BLACKER firewall/VPN model, however.

No more "trusted" red network behind firewall/VPN gateway (aka "blacker") separating it from the untrusted black network.

The metaphorical firewall is there on every endpoint.

For anyone who didn't know Google apparently deleted (like in making it unrecoverable) a larger customers subscription (and GCP data) and also all backups as far as it sounds. The customer luckily had their own backups elsewhere outside of GCP.

That's insane.

Surprised Google has never heard of soft delete.

Google restricts that to PI of product they sell to advertisers, like all your browsing history or YT videos.

Imagine if a bank, hospital or government agency was taken out by something like this.

GCP does have customers in each of the above segments, I suppose we’re just lucky they weren’t affected.

It was the records of $100 billion dollars in retirement assets that was deleted by Google. Not a small deal, and far more than many small banks.

I am, unfortunately, a customer of the retirement firm, UniSuper.

UniSuper is a large financial organisation. It’s managing $100 billion plus in pension funds.

I think because it’s an Australian company the reported news hasn’t been picked up more as nobody knows who they are. The wording of the official press releases has also been carefully worded/managed to reduce what is really damaging news for the GCP sales department who are on a big push in Oceania for the large corporate companies dangling free credits.

Just out of curiosity, do you play an instrument?

I'm wondering if it impacts people with strong emotional bond to art more than others.

I felt it was just super weird and nonsensical.

I did growing up, but haven’t touched it in decades.

I personally just took it as a spoof on the hydraulic press channel.

Whenever this story comes up I think of this movie, called 23, that's tells the story from the hackers perspective.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_(film)

Both stories are fascinating.

Microsoft's mice and keyboards also were exceptionally good

I think each test served exactly its purpose and it's incredible to see the rapid progress. Unclear why you believe the first two were not a success at all? Did you expect a novel vehicle like this would just work the first time?

I do. SLS, Vulcan, and most other rockets from reputable space companies have worked first time.

Those are also:

- More expensive than Starship, or

- Took longer to develop than Starship, or

- Are significantly less ambitious than Starship

(and those are definitely not exclusive ORs)

Going by total program cost, both of those are cheaper than Starship. SpaceX does this sleight of hand where they don't count their R&D cost in their calculations, but they do count it in other peoples' programs when comparing. SLS so far is about $2 billion in, and Starship seems to be at $2-3 billion. Vulcan is way cheaper than both.

SLS flight cost is $2B. Each launch. Did you forget to include the decade prior? It's so expensive that it can fly no more than once a year. The next flight is scheduled for Sep 2025, three years after the first flight. I bet you think that isn't absurd.

SLS use leftover engines from the Shuttle era. Yet it still cost 160 millions. Each. Thrown away after each flight.

Vulcan is a conservative design with no reuse. It also uses BE-4 engine, which costs them nothing to develop.

- Source for Vulcan total program cost? All I can find is their per-launch pricing. Tory Bruno himself apparently said that "new rockets typically cost US$2 billion, including US$1 billion for the main engine."

- Not sure where you're getting the SLS number, the GAO report at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105609.pdf claims, "Since 2011, NASA has spent $11.8 billion to develop the initial SLS capability."

- I think the marginal cost is a fair question. The whole party line out of NASA was that this time Moon exploration would be sustainable. If each trip costs > $1B before you even put a payload on the rocket that's a big problem.

I completely agree with you on marginal cost, but I don't believe SpaceX to provide accurate numbers for their own rockets before they are actually built (they love wishful thinking) or their competitors' (making your competitors look bad is better for you).

Okay well respectfully I looked at the number you provided for the closest comparison rocket, SLS, and it was 6x too charitable.

The word reputable was an interesting choice to describe Boeing. It also carries a bold implication that the space company shuttling astronauts to and from the ISS—only two days ago [1]—is… disreputable? Meanwhile, Boeing Starliner certainly didn't perform nominally on its first orbital flight test [2].

Space flight is hard and different testing methodologies are no silver bullet. But, I suppose we will know them by their fruits.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Crew-7

[2] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/?p=802006

I wonder, who decides which space companies are "reputable" and based on which criteria.

It is quite a manipulative word to use.

And the Saturn V

Google mitigated it via CSP , as did Bing Chat.

ChatGPT is still vulnerable btw

Agreed mostly, although I'm less of a fan of the "dream" terminology.

The key takeaway is that we can't trust LLM output and systems need to be designed accordingly.

Eg Agents will never be able to securely take actions autonomously based on LLM responses.

This sounds good, but didn't Apple get off the hook?

Anyone can decipher what the difference are?

Jury trial vs bench hearing.