Yeah, they can. And I think that that’s also been the discussion that… I’ve been doing Illusia for seven years now, and there are very few volunteers who are interested in contributing to the bureaucracy and running for it. If it were a company, then people would have ownership of that company and they would be more involved in it. So I think that in that sense, it would be more interesting for people to do things as a company. But also, if I would do something like that, I think that I would prefer to do it with some state/EU funding and then some crowdfunding way, because that would allow us to actually own the IP and not have investors putting pressure on us to do things in a way they want instead of us doing the things the way we want.
�@Gartner�́A�f�[�^�����уC���t���X�g���N�`���A���f��������AI�G�[�W�F���g�A�ƊE��AI�A�\�����[�V�����A�T�C�o�[�Z�L�����e�B�̕����ō����̒��ڊ��Ƃ������Ă����BGartner�̃A���\�j�[�E�u���b�h���[���i�O���[�v�E�o�C�X�v���W�f���g�j�ɂ����ƁA�Z�p�͂⓱�����сA�ڋq���ՁA�r�W�l�X���f���A�p�[�g�i�[�V�b�v�A�����������芪���G�R�V�X�e������Ƀ��[�f�B���O�J���p�j�[���I�o�����Ƃ����B
。新收录的资料对此有专业解读
The Commission’s credibility on digital sovereignty, open standards, and vendor-independent infrastructure is undermined — symbolically but meaningfully — each time its own processes rely exclusively on proprietary formats from non-European technology vendors. The CRA is precisely the kind of legislation where procedural consistency with stated principles matters most.。关于这个话题，新收录的资料提供了深入分析
At this point, I should mention that the reason I did more extensive testing this year across different regions is the disappointing performance of Emerald Rapids in practice, compared to its showing on my original benchmarks. It seems that as it started to get used, exhibited a performance variance that looks consistent with boost behavior + node contention (i.e. more sensitive to noisy neighbors). I suspect this is why GCP offers the option to turn boost clock off in Emerald Rapids instances for "consistent performance".