Steve Blanks' "Secret History of Silicon Valley" details the emergence of that tech hub beginning with WWII and the "radiation lab", which helped develop radar.
Those of us who can remember the 1980s / early 1990s, prior to the defence build-down following the end of the Cold War might recall quite a few defence-related establishments in and around Silicon Valley, in its original scope centred on Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara - Palo Alto region.
Today that role (strongly discouraging grouped formations) has been occupied by drones.
The current UA/RU front is a 30km deep kill zone crossed by FPV craft (and discarded optic fibre cables) in which the largest effective group size might be four or so soldiers. Tanks are all but useless as sitting ducks.
Reuters made a surprisingly good infographic / interactive feature on this this past July:
Some aspects of modern warfare seem to be taking the classic idea of light infantry and dialing it up to 11. They have little armor or heavy weaponry but are such a fluid sparse target and have such a small logistical footprint that they are expensive and difficult to root out.
The modern version of this allows the same soldiers to command heavier, better weaponry via remote control that is asymmetric to their logistical footprint, enabling them to shape a battle space that would not have been possible historically.
Of course these things ebb and flow. I imagine the solution to this problem is something like autonomous drone swarms with advanced sensors that can systematically sterilize an area of any hidden soft targets. Sparsity would not be much of a defense in this case.
"Throw unlimited resources at a development target" has been an established F/OSS embrace/extend tactic for at least 20 years.
Red Hat, systemd, Chrome, Webkit, Android, and a few others come to mind. Others might include Kubernetes, OpenJDK, Clang, React, Docker, Git/Github.
Forks are possible but sustained forks are expensive, and <https://xkcd.com/927/> is always relevant.
It's helpful to note that the guy who literally wrote the textbook on lock-in went on to have a career as Google's chief economist: Hal Varian, Information Rules.
Google lacks the authority to unify folding phone software any better than they can unify homescreen launchers or dialer applications. It's a lost cause. They can spend billions on building the best one ever, and then Motorola or LG will ship a worse proprietary version and never update it. This pattern does not arise from a lack of charity on Google's part.
It's inconvenient that the links are dead, but all the information needed to find the referenced information is still stored in the link. You just have to change the domain to a working instance.
From HN's PoV, the issue is that there aren't well-known workarounds which can be used for X.com / Twitter.com submissions. HN's principle concern is more that any discussion on such posts will largely revolve around the regwall / paywall, which doesn't advance HN's own prime directive: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27901918>
I've emailed HN's mods requesting Twitter/X links be site-banned as hard-paywalled, given that Nitter and XCancel had also just received C&Ds (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437283>).
Not good enough. Creating an account still leads to the "Your account was suspended for reasons, now you gotta dox yourself" dance. See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49442907
Zip-ties, velcro, and twine (all suggested previously) also work well.
reply