IBM just spun out a $19B annual revenue managed infrastructure business, Kyndryl. [1]
Doing some back of the napkin math on the remaining business, by revenue it is roughly 45% consulting, 40% software, and 15% hardware. IP revenue represents 1% ($626M) of its revenue. [2]
What does it actually do? At a high level, help companies deal with the complexities created in a world of heterogeneous infrastructure (data and AI across environments, common management/security, automation, etc.).
Sorry to hijack the thread here. Why is your prediction that IBM gives up "hybrid multi-cloud"? Isn't hybrid multi-cloud exactly aligned with the future that you are portraying here (sans IBM's bet on k8s, which we could have another debate on) that what runs on top of cloud infrastructure will be available across multiple clouds?
Disclaimer: I work for IBM, and my opinions are my own.
> In 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released new recommendations for car seat safety. As part of these recommendations, they removed their previous age-based recommendation that children remain rear facing in car seats until the age of 2.
> The AAP now suggests that children remain rear facing until they reach their rear-facing car seat’s weight/height limits which, for most children, will leave them rear-facing beyond the previous age recommendation.
My wife and I got into an argument about this when it was time to switch our kids car seat so I pulled up their recommendations and read their sources. Their cited evidence doesn't support their recommendation at all (nor did it when they first made the rec in 2011).
Their 2011 rear facing recommendation is based on a retracted article and their 2016 rec is based on the same article's data except using a smaller dataset which they acknowledge is not statistically significant. The only other data cited looks at rear facing Swedish children compared to _unbelted_ Swedish children.
I went back and reread it to make sure I was remembering right. I'm dumbfounded that this was allowed not only to stand as a rec, but was increased (deepened? made stronger?) when they had even less data than they did before. I get that it feels like it should be safer, but that's not science and I would have expected a group making medical and safety recs to maintain a higher standard.
