This seems to be arguing that they should more than showing that they increasingly are.
Also the bit about companies with more older workers performing better, and the bit about older people often losing jobs due to layoffs, sound like they could also fit together as high firm performance permitting long tenure rather than having to show only that experienced employees cause higher firm performance (although of course the examples demonstrate the latter via other means, so it can't be that it doesn't happen at all).
ugh that they have to phrase it in such a way already makes me nauseous.
why start with the 'not as a decline, but as'. its such a stupid way to put it.
i cant beleive marketing ppl still dont realize that you dont sell something by say 'oh its not actually a turd its delicious'. JUST SAY ITS DELICIOUS. NO ONE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS NOT.
you dont want to put a bad flavor in someones mouth and then try to wash it out.
even LLM get this basic shit wrong lmao.
sorry a bit unrelated but considering the specific topic this tagline is suppose to address its really triggering.
And it is infamously insecure, full of spam, and struggles with attachments beyond 10mB.
So thank you for bringing it up, it showcases well that a distributed system is not automatically a good distributed system, and why you want encryption, cryptographic fingerprints and cryptographic provenance tracking.
And yet, it is a constantly used decentralized system which does not require content addressing, as you mentioned. You should elaborate why we need content addressing for a decentralized system instead of saying "10MiB limit + spam lol email fell off". Contemporary usage of technologies you've mentioned don't seem to do much to reduce spam (see IPFS which has hard content addressing). Please, share more.
If you think email is still in widespread use because it’s doing a good job, rather than because of massive network effects and sheer system inertia, then we’re probably talking past each other - but let me spell it out anyway.
Email “works” in the same sense that fax machines worked for decades: it’s everywhere, it’s hard to dislodge, and everyone has already built workflows around it.
There is no intrinsic content identity, no native provenance, no cryptographic binding between “this message” and “this author”. All of that has to be bolted on - inconsistently, optionally, and usually not at all.
And even ignoring the cryptography angle: email predates “content as a first-class addressable object”. Attachments are in-band, so the sender pushes bytes and the receiver (plus intermediaries) must accept/store/scan/forward them up front. That’s why providers enforce tight size limits and aggressive filtering: the receiver is defending itself against other people’s pushes.
For any kind of information dissemination like email or scientific publishing you want the opposite shape: push lightweight metadata (who/what/when/signature + content hashes), and let clients pull heavy blobs (datasets, binaries, notebooks) from storage the publishing author is willing to pay for and serve. Content addressing gives integrity + dedup for free. Paying ~1$ per DOI for what is essentially a UUID, is ridiculous by comparison.
That decoupling (metadata vs blobs) is the missing primitive in email-era designs.
All of that makes email a bad template for a substrate of verifiable, long-lived, referenceable knowledge. Let's not forget that the context of this thread isn’t “is decentralized routing possible?”, it’s “decentralized scientific publishing” - which is not about decentralized routing, but decentralized truth.
Email absolutely is decentralized, but decentralization by itself isn’t enough. Scientific publishing needs decentralized verification.
What makes systems like content-addressed storage (e.g., IPFS/IPLD) powerful isn’t just that they don’t rely on a central server - it’s that you can uniquely and unambiguously reference the exact content you care about with cryptographic guarantees. That means:
- You can validate that what you fetched is exactly what was published or referenced, with no ambiguity or need to trust a third party.
- You can build layered protocols on top (e.g., versioning, merkle trees, audit logs) where history and provenance are verifiable.
- You don’t have to rely on opaque identifiers that can be reissued, duplicated, or reinterpreted by intermediaries.
For systems that don’t rely on cryptographic primitives, like email or the current infrastructure using DOIs and ORCIDs as identifiers:
- There is no strong content identity - messages can be altered in transit.
- There is no native provenance - you can’t universally prove who authored something without added layers.
- There’s no simple way to compose these into a tamper-evident graph of scientific artifacts with rigorous references.
A truly decentralized scholarly publishing stack needs content identity and provenance. DOIs and ORCIDs help with discovery and indexing, but they are institutional namespaces, not cryptographically bound representations of content. Without content addressing and signatures, you’re mostly just trading one central authority for another.
It’s also worth being explicit about what “institutional namespace” means in practice here.
A DOI does not identify content. It identifies a record in a registry (ultimately operated under the DOI Foundation via registration agencies). The mapping from a DOI to a URL and ultimately to the actual bytes is mutable, policy-driven, and revocable. If the publisher disappears, changes access rules, or updates what they consider the “version of record”, the DOI doesn’t tell you what an author originally published or referenced - it tells you what the institution currently points to.
ORCID works similarly: a centrally governed identifier system with a single root of authority. Accounts can be merged, corrected, suspended, or modified according to organisational policy. There is no cryptographic binding between an ORCID, a specific work, and the exact bytes of that work that an independent third party can verify without trusting the ORCID registry.
None of this is malicious - these systems were designed for coordination and attribution, not for cryptographic verifiability. But it does mean they are gatekeepers in the precise sense that matters for decentralization:
Even if lookup/resolution is distributed, the authority to decide what an identifier refers to, whether it remains valid, and how conflicts are resolved is concentrated in a small number of organizations. If those organizations change policy, disappear, or disagree with you, the identifier loses its meaning - regardless of how many mirrors or resolvers exist.
If the system you build can’t answer “Is this byte-for-byte the thing the author actually referenced or published?” without trusting a gatekeeper, then it’s centralized in every meaningful sense that matters to reproducibility and verifiability.
Decentralised lookup without decentralised authority is just centralisation with better caching.
I assume someone somewhere has a dataset for technology diffusion broken out by country or at least region? Like so[1], but as a table and not limited to just here.
Perhaps that sort of thing could be useful enough to justify the extra bytes?
I can't find the detailed breakdown for 2025, but in 2024, they took in $308bn in premiums and paid out $264bn in medical costs. So even ignoring all of the downstream and systemic problems caused by insurance existing as a for-profit entity, they're taking 14% off the top just to exist as a middle-man.
Highlighting that was actually part of my point. What utility does insurance add to justify its existence as a middle man? How are we better off with a middle man taking a cut vs nationalizing the industry? And that 14% is at best, given the other externalities of the existence of insurance and its perverse incentives.
You're saying "how is that worse than other industries", but I'm saying, why is there an industry there at all?
The government would still need employees to basically do everything that the people at insurance companies do. Theoretically it could be more efficient, realistically it would not.
The real problem with our system is that for anyone who is going to hit their deductible, or especially their out of pocket max, the costs no longer matter at all. Sure, that cancer drug can be $500,000. GLP1 drugs for $1,000 a month? Why not?
Of course, there's no free lunch on this. In a single payer system you get things like the UK not approving certain cancer treatments for people over a certain age, certain medications just aren't available, etc.
Otherwise you could make every plan a very high deductible plan, possible just not cover medications at all, etc. But then people will complain about people not being able to afford things, especially in the short term.
If you’ve had UHC you’d know very well that Optum is intimately tied to their insurance business. UHC just “administers the plan” while Optum controls plan decisions. So when there’s a problem, which there always is with every claim more complicated than a PCP visit, you get bounced between both companies for hours until you find someone willing to take responsibility for answering questions.
That's effectively a complete ban as a thrown potato would have considerably more energy than that. A quick web search suggests professional baseball pitchers achieve ~130J, and a potato is roughly comparable to a baseball in mass.
There should be some temperature where incoming radiation (sunlight) balances outgoing radiation (thermal IR). As long as you're ok with whatever that temperature is at our distance from the sun, I'd think the only real issue would be making sure your satellite has enough thermal conductivity.
A few years ago I talked to an developer advocate for Azure. I wanted to know why it took for ever when you wanted a new public IP. My take was that it felt like they went out on the internet to look for an IP to purchase from a 3rd. party. The answer I got was that do to the silos within Microsoft it might as well be a 3rd party supplier. The slowness is exactly because IPs are/were a managed by another Microsoft entity, who views any interaction, even within the company, as hostile.
I get your point, but it just sounds a bit funny when it's an artefact of corporate structure that it's true.
Like imagine if AWS was composed of separate companies for different services - Fargate was an Heroku acquisition say - and then they all went down and blamed their 'upstream provider' because they can't work without say VPC or EC2 availability.
I think that's all GP meant, it just reads a bit funny, not that it's wrong.
> It means that any service designed to survive a control plane outage must statically allocate its compute resources and have enough slack that it never relies on auto scaling. True for AWS/GCP/Azure.
In a way. It means that you can get new capacity most often, but the transition windows where a service gets resized (or mutated in general) has to be minimised and carefully controlled by ops.
As in it's fully characterized, so you can use only math and logic rather than relying on experience and guesswork.
reply