I don't understand what this does. How can it "build" anything without a VM capable of running actual code?

Is "build" being used here in the sense of assembling pre-existing layers into an image? What would be the purpose of that?

The idea is that, in many cases, you can create a layer "by hand" without running actual Linux programs. Layers don't need to be pre-existing, the only requirement is that they can be built programmatically (inside the browser, in this case). The demo actually does that: it "manually" creates a layer from the user-specified entrypoint script, then creates an image from the pre-existing base image's layers and the new entrypoint layer.

In a more real scenario, you can e.g., turn pip wheels into layers without actually using docker's RUN command. All it takes is to massage the data from one archive format into another, programmatically. This unlocks lots of potential (e.g., it becomes embarrassingly parallel to build a container image comprised of pip wheels). Combine that with a good layer caching strategy and a registry that takes advantage of it, and you can have near-instant container builds for arbitrary sets of pip dependencies.

An interesting learning project, but not actually usable.

https://github.com/danoon2/Boxedwine looks interesting in this space, but unfortunately it can't really run anything remotely modern in practice (though if you're looking at 20th century Windows software it will likely be capable of running it).

If you want to "Put me in control of Start", how about you let me permanently kill SearchHost.exe and StartMenuExperienceHost.exe (not to mention widget*.exe) if I don't use your ad-ridden start menu (and replace it with something like Start11 instead).

These processes automatically restart if you terminate them and you can't uninstall the "CBS system app" they come from. They take about ~300Mb RAM and constantly talk over the network while providing literally no user value (I know because I suspended them and could continue using my computer with no ill effect).

I do, but this still uses the Bitwarden app and browser extensions. I'm now worried that in pursuit of monetization they'll start screwing with those. After all, the code in the clients have access to all recorded secrets and there would be nothing stopping them from accessing that unencrypted data.

I really doubt they would push a client that removes the master password based client side encryption. That could even be considered criminal.

Damn, all schools in our district in Washington moved to Instructure last year.

They moved away from Teams because it objectively sucked, but I haven't heard of widespread compromises like this in Microsoft's systems so...

"If those kids could read they'd be very upset"

The "sense of pride" bit makes me think they're not even taking it seriously... either that, or they hired EA's PR person that managed this record voted comment on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b...

If there aren't serious consequences for driverless cars committing crimes (I mean jail time for executives serious), what's to stop someone for starting a hitman business?

We'll just run someone over with our "driverless" car and pay a fine - capitalism, baby!

I was surprised that the old Cat5e in my home supports 10Gbps without any issue, so went ahead and upgraded the rest of the network with 10Gbps switches (expensive Ubiquiti gear, but worth it to talk at 10Gbps between all my machines, even though the internet is only 5Gbps Fiber).

Yeah, my home is cat5e (I think!) and I was only able to get 2.5 or 5Gbps to my _single_ 10GbE capable machine I had at the time.

So I ended up just buying a switch that supports 2.5Gbps over copper since it's such a huge expense to step up. Anyway, my devices are pretty much 2.5Gbps (APs, flex mini switches, etc).

This sounds great, how can we help influence representatives to support and vote for this law?