Over the last 16 years Democrats have occupied the White House 75% of the time, so for younger folk Democrats are the establishment and Republicans the underdog.
I think it’s more specific than that. The 2008 surge of young people to democrats was driven by rage at the failures of two institutions: the banks (the Great Recession), and the intelligence apparatus (Iraq war). But those institutions never were reformed, and today the Democratic Party has become the staunchest defenders of the banks and the intelligence apparatus.
But for Gen Z folks, that stuff is ancient history, isn't it? Even the oldest members (using 1997 as a starting point, but some definitions use 2000) were too young to protest or serve in Iraq[1]. By the time the youngest Gen Z folks were starting school in the mid-2010s, the US stock market and unemployment rate had reached pre-recession levels too.
[1] I mean when people cared about Iraq, 2003 to circa 2008. We still have troops there, but I don't think most of America is even aware of that.
Both of those institutions were, in fact, heavily reformed.
What you actually mean is that there was little personal legal accountability for past actions, which I don't disagree with. The legal and political frameworks they operate under has changed quite a bit though.
I'm pretty sure that only a small minority of Americans, let alone those in the 18-29 age group, can name their senators and representative and anyone on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, most Americans instead seem to imagine this country as an autocracy in which they get to vote for a new ruler every four years.
Probably the most impactful to your own life vote you can cast is the local municipal one. And that has such poor turnout among the youth it is crazy. Even in places where they mail you a ballot automatically and you have two weeks to vote at polls. People just don’t care to be engaged.
I've been fascinated by the shift towards Trump by 18-29 voters in this past election, and I think this is a good explanation that I haven't heard before. Yeah, and Bush 43 was so long ago that his popular image has turned from kind of a villainous "worst president ever" to a favorably remembered elder statesman according to some polls.
Note that it was a shift for Trump, still not a majority voting for him. Exit polls that I've seen still indicated an 11-point lead for Harris[1], but that's much more narrow than the 24-point lead that Biden had in 2020[2]. Anyway, I've been fascinated by this because it kind of broke my mental model imagining that the Republican party would eventually be marginalized as its voters died of old age. I definitely thought Trump was going to lose this age group in 2024 by the widest margin ever.
Racism and mysogeny is still very much alive among the youth and quite a lot of the US lacks any diversity to combat those notions. Or if they do have diversity on paper it might still be somewhat segregated where these communities might be neighbors but don’t overlap in activities. Less a melting pot, more a punchbowl filled with different fruits bumping into eachother.
Assuming an acquiring company would have a larger market cap than Intel ($91B) lets take a look at current market caps of US tech companies ($B):
Apple $3463 - no chance. They've poured billions into moving off Intel and are doing well. No strategic benefit.
Nvidia $3386 - Likely. Plenty of cash on hand. Would make a pretty epic company if combined and Nvidia culture spreads throughout Intel. Diversify away from TSMC as a single (albeit awesome) supplier which is a big risk.
Microsoft $3213 - Plausible.
Google $2421 - Plausible. But no obvious synergy.
Amazon $2374 - No chance. Invested billion into their own ARM.
Facebook $1554 - Likely. Software company trying desperately to get into hardware. Don't have ARM investments. Don't have AI chip investments.
Tesla $1404 - Unlikely. Don't use x86 in cars anymore as did a urgent pivot to ARM. Elon's unpredictable tho and has the cash.
Broadcom $1114 - Likely
Oracle $453 - Plausible
Salesforce $313 - Plausible as they're an acquisition company
Cisco $241 - Plausible as they're an acquisition company
IBM $207 - Plausible as they're an acquisition company
AMD $197 - No chance on anti-compete law
Adobe $187 - Low chance.
Qualcomm $182 - Plausible
TI $174 - Plausible
Micron $117 - Plausible. Intel started out doing ram chips.
Depressing how many companies are on the list - shows how far Intel has fallen.
Among the biggest players, Apple actually kind of makes sense?
They've poured billions into moving off Intel and are doing well
They have no interest in x86. But Intel has fabs and (I'm guessing) a huge truckload of valuable patents.
Apple has been kicking ass with their CPUs but a large percentage of this is due to throwing lots of money at TSMC to tie up their cutting edge fabs.
But there is uncertainty in TSMC's future thanks to the China/Taiwan/USA situation, and Apple also has no real control over TSMC aside from giving them bucketloads of cash.
That's not a situation Apple loves to be in, and they have the cash to do something about it....
Owning their own fabs would save them whatever hefty premium they are paying TSMC, the exact same way that moving off of x86 saved them whatever premium they were paying to Intel.
> "Microsoft $3213 - Plausible."
They're not a hardware company at heart and would crater Intel just as surely as they cratered Nokia. Same goes for Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
You know how much money Apple had to pour into processor R&D to build something competitive with x86? That bet paid off for Apple in the form of the M1 and its successors.
Intel is still profitable so they're covering their own R&D cost and they're still in second place in process technology. TSMC is undoubtedly charging a hefty margin for their cutting edge fab process so the economics might work out for Apple doing its own fabbing.
It feels like there's something of an attack vector here with cloud providers who lease IPs for hours at a time.
1. Lease IP
2. Obtain cert (verify can receive traffic to IP on port 80)
3. Give IP back
4. Cloud provider gives IP to another customer
5. Bgp attack IP with 6 days.
While I support the idea of IP certs I do wonder how thought through this is and what the future consequences for security are.
I agree with another commenter here who said this should be limited to IPs behind RPKI.
Possibly also needs a mechanism for IP owners to clamp the cert time to be below their IP re-lease policy. As an example a provider like AWS could require max certs of (say) 6 hours and ensure any returned IPs stay unleased for 6 hours before reissuing them)
If you control the IP or domain via a BGP hack, you can get a certificate issued while you control it, as long as you control it from the perspective of their CA.
You've got to be pretty lucky, or do a lot of IP cycling for your vector to be terribly useful. A paranoid user of IP certs would let their new public facing assignments settle for a week before using them; but I suspect few people will start using IP address certs, because of usability.
I wouldn't write off the use of IP certs just yet.
AFAIK IP address certs would provide a way to create a secure browsing context in your browser, which is required for service worker ('offline' background threads) and some File API, which could open up a new class of programs that host for friends and family.
This is exactly why the LE IP certs will be limited to 6 days: this exact attack is possible today against any IP address cert, and such certs in general are allowed to have lifetimes up to 398 days. LE isn't comfortable with that situation, so IP certs will have the shortest feasible lifetimes.
Easily the best product in its category. The value is in APM/tracing - if you're just using it for logs you're missing a lot.
If you're used to traditional Enterprise pricing it's fairly priced for the value you get but anybody coming from self-funded or VC it's very expensive. If you're already using Splunk you can afford it.
One of its best features is it's consumption priced not by seats so easy to open up for all of eng including product/QA teams and not just devs to use which is great for breaking down barriers.
It's a bit like aws in that it's a platform - use of one product tends to encourage using more from their suite.
I used to log large apps using kibana and elastic search. Also using the clusterfuck that are all AWS tries at this (cloud watch, log insights.amd whatnot).
Nothing compares to what DD give you in observability.
Having said that, DD should only be an AWS feature. They should buy them for a couple of billions and integrate it as a service for all of AWS infrastructure.
>it looks like they're hinting towards offering a 'self-hosted' model
That makes sense. Datadog has been pure SaaS the whole time, which is unusual. Buying a good db engine like Quickwit would be a smart head-start into the on-prem segment which is a natural expansion opportunity.
I've previously made the prediction that Datadog is the new Cisco - can expect lots of acquisitions to be made going forward.
I joined Datadog after the Vector acquisition and now currently am the manager for the Community Open Source Engineering team that works on Vector open source.
Just confirming strongly what ripley12 said, as a person with direct involvement in OSS at Datadog.
I haven't kept super close tabs on it but last year we were hiring for a role to do tech lead stuff and OSS community building for Vector, and yes several of the original Vector employees still work here.
