It’s an NVIDIA specific term that is the abbreviation for GPU System Processor. It’s a RISC-V core that does all sorts of management tasks on a modern Nvidia card, mostly related to task setup, resource allocation, context switching, adjusting clock speeds, etc.

I bought a used gen1 Thinkpad X1 Nano. It is super light (<1kg), works flawless out of the box with Linux, and while I think it does have a fan I’ve never noticed it.

Based on the neofetch it’s a Samsung Fold Z 4

I don’t mind this. It’s unreasonable to expect them to provide a free service forever without any kind of monetization.

Except that Spez can’t convert those options until some time after IPO and probably only in a staggered way.

To quote the author himself:

Great, do whatever you want. Just shut the fuck up about it, nobody cares.

But then he proceeds to do the exact opposite and posts a vitriolic rant about how everyone who doesn’t use what they use is, in their words, and idiot.

I used them as well, and I know of at least 3 more coworkers who use them as well.

I got started when I got one for free with a used computer I bought. I’ve since then switch full time to using an MX Ergo (like OP) on my desktop, and a cheaper M575 I keep in my laptop bag.

I even game with them, and haven’t touched a computer mouse in probably 2 years.

The MX Ergo is far superior to any other I’ve used, highly recommended.

Have you considered supporting Sixel for images?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixel

Where is this template from?

Sorry, yes, that was durability. I got it mixed up in my head. Availability had lower targets.

But I stand by the gist of my argument - you can achieve a lot with a live/live system, or a 3 node system with a master election, or…

High availability doesn’t have to equate high cost or complexity, if you can take it into account when designing the system.

I used to work on an on premise object storage system before, where we required double digits of “nines” availability. High availability is not rocket science. Most scenarios are covered by having 2 or 3 machines.

I’d also wager that using the cloud properly is a different skillset than properly managing or upgrading a Linux system, not necessarily a cheaper or better one from a company point of view.

Got to agree with @Zushii@feddit.de here, although it depends on the scope of your service or project.

Cloud services are good at getting you up and running quickly, but they are very, very expensive to scale up.

I work for a financial services company, and we are paying 7 digit monthly AWS bills for an amount of work that could realistically be done with one really big dedicated server. And now we’re required to support multiple cloud providers by some of our customers, we’ve spent a TON of effort trying to untangle from SQS/SNS and other AWS specific technologies.

Clouds like to tell you:

• Using the cloud is cheaper than running your own server
• Using cloud services requires less manpower / labour to maintain and manage
• It’s easier to get up and running and scale up later using cloud services

The last item is true, but the first two are only true if you are running a small service. Scaling up on a cloud is not cost effective, and maintaining a complicated cloud architecture can be FAR more complicated than managing a similar centralized architecture.

Surely Elon would prefer the old Lucid fork, https://www.xemacs.org/