HN user

dotwaffle

208 karma
Posts0
Comments63
View on HN
No posts found.

Needing to list an "executive sponsor" (an individual, not a role or a team) for each and every item in a service catalogue seems like mindless bureaucracy.

Meanwhile, having "custom properties" attached to each repo feels very much like administering JIRA, and schema-less YAML blobs that pervade the GitOps world.

Is it just me, or isn't the glaringly obvious solution to this an actual database and API, rather than just tacking on random bits of metadata that have no real-time validation etc?

I could be wrong, but I think DAB uses DQPSK (which can be thought of as a special version of QAM 4 if you squint a bit) and not anything like the higher QAM constellations because it's deliberately designed for mobile (road, train etc) where you don't have a steady signal, it can vary a lot with motion, so QAM 64 wouldn't really be possible.

Though I did a quick check and apparently DRM+ uses QAM-16, so perhaps my knowledge is far too out of date :S

so for peak loudness (someone shouting or the loudest spike in music) it can take an extra 50% power to create the upper and lower sidebands

Some people save energy by turning their appliances off at the plug rather than leaving them on standby. Clearly Radio 4 chose to avoid having Brian Blessed on too frequently instead ;)

DAB+ uses EEP (and RS) which was deliberately chosen to give better signal quality all the way to the point of losing reception. Old DAB used UEP which degrades faster, but instead of having no signal, it went to a muddier / warbling kind of sound that characterised early DAB receivers.

And technically while some people do call it MPEG2, it's actually MP2, also known as MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2, an audio codec in the same family as MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3).

I imagine that today they'd probably use something like Opus and a fountain code or similar, yes... But you can't expect everyone to replace their radio every 10-15 years ;)

Starship isn't a proven manned transport vessel yet. And Boom was founded in 2014.

If I was to hazard a guess, the BFS concept is 2035 at the earliest, most likely 2040 -- and it'll be at a much smaller scale than previously advertised.

Boom is planning to operate at Mach 1.7 (approx. twice that of current aircraft) with a range of about 4250 nautical miles (4900 miles, 7900 km). Over land they're only going to fly at Mach 1.3 to reduce sonic boom effects.

That's not enough range to do London - Sydney, it's not enough to do Los Angeles to Sydney either, or Los Angeles to Tokyo, it's basically a replacement for trans-Atlantic flights only because even US cross-continental Mach 1.3 is only about 50% faster than a 737 (3h vs. 5h)... It's pretty much geared to the prestige market only.

Under an hour to anywhere on the planet, meanwhile, is absolutely someone would be a premium for -- and they'll do it for most/all long haul flights if it was available.

All markets are finite. But you're thinking too finitely -- remember that there was a proposal to use Starship (BFS?) as a point-to-point method of people transport too (London to Sydney in under 50 minutes I seem to remember).

You also have other services: Starlink is an obvious one they're pursuing now, but there's many other things that they could branch into with no effective competition right now, from harvesting resources such as Helium-3 to Rare Earths (ironic name), to... (thinks for several minutes) banishing people to the Phantom Zone?

But you get what I mean, it's not just about rockets, it's about the things cheap and reliable rocketry enables.

I have done extensive research on CDC and it almost never works out because most utilities don't create compressed archives in an "rsyncable" (rsync does CDC) format, I actually saved a lot of storage using restic when I switched my backups of certain things so that files were stored in archives uncompressed, and sorted in a stable order. I know syncthing eventually removed CDC and just went with constant-size block sizes.

Bazel, on the other hand, is completely in control of this, and it makes perfect sense to do this at that point -- and it seems to be a relatively efficient implementation too, really nice to see!

As someone who predominantly writes in Go, cider-v was a massive step backwards compared to cider. I eventually moved entirely over to using vim (with the set of internal plugins for blaze etc) which became so much more useful, but I still missed the features of a proper IDE that cider just excelled at.

I imagine a lot of it came from that push to "use outside world tools more rather than writing our own" which is great in theory, but really felt like a huge leap backwards in terms of convergence.

flow-crushing remote desktop latency

Yeah, I was working out of the Sydney office. Almost everything was incredibly slow due to that latency, not just chromoting but also just accessing most sites through beyondcorp.

Cider (and p4/g4c etc) was amazing when I left back in 2020, I loved it so much, and truly miss it. I rejoined Google last year, and they'd replaced it with a VSCode clone that truly was just a glorified text editor and most were all-in on mercurial as a piper/citc shim -- I was only there for 5 months before I decided not to stay, and I never managed to get Go type definition hints working.

That's what Locally Recoverable Codes (including Pyramid Codes) are designed to address: you can repair a missing block using only a subset of the blocks, which you can make sure are placed in just one zone, eliminating the cross-az bandwidth requirements. Sure, if you lose multiple blocks, you are going to end up needing that extra bandwidth, but the chances of having two blocks offline at once is very low -- if it's just for a failure rather than extended maintenance, then you have probably already repaired the first block by the time the second fails.

In fact, the RS configuration is often in the >50 data blocks and >10 parity blocks range (albeit with an LRC/nested RS config) for object stores because it's more important to have that recoverability than repair efficiency. While one large provider I worked at did have a system whereby they did effectively have two copies of the RS-encoded data (so that 130% turned into 260%) across two AZs, they were actively in the process of swapping to the blocks being evenly distributed across the AZs, near-halving the total required disk space.

As I said before, most object storage is not on SSD, it's on hard disk: it's 20% of the price per TB, and most objects are read very infrequently. I can promise you that they're not paying $200 for 1TB of SSD either... I realise prices are higher than sensible in the last 6 months, but it was fairly easy to pick up SSDs for under $50/TB at retail pricing (and hard disks for under $10/TB) only a year ago.

GCS / Azure can survive a total AZ failure too, think of 3 x Replicas as RAID-1, whereas Erasure Coding is more like RAID-6. Only it's actually more resilient:

Let's say you have 10 data blocks, and you have 4 parity blocks. You can now lose 4 servers containing a block and still be able to repair the data, whereas in 3 x Replica you can only lose 2, and have to store everything 300% of size, instead of only 140%.

And yes, it is unreasonable how much they charge for both storage and inter-az bandwidth.

Is it 3x redundancy forever? I always just kinda assumed it was RS encoded after a while, so only 30-50% larger than a single copy. Plus, almost all object storage is written to / read from hard disks, not to SSDs. Unless they're in a caching layer that is.

I know Azure has done a bunch of work around Pyramid Codes (essentially a locally repairable EC/RS variant), and Google obviously have the Colossus infrastructure that allows variable encodings, I'd be surprised if AWS is still triple-replicated everywhere.

Insanely high S3 storage charges too. $23/TB/month? Even with the insane HDD pricing that we see today, that's paying off a drive in 1 month (at retail) that will last for 50-100 months. Sure, there's probably some encoding overhead, but it's still mad.

Just create separate AWS accounts for separate services

My understanding is that different AWS accounts have different mappings of availability zones, so it's very easy to suddenly find yourself with an unexpected bandwidth bill due to all the cross-az traffic.

I've been irritated at AWS (and the other large cloud providers) that they charge $0.01/GB for cross-az traffic. That's $3.24/Mbps -- about the same I was paying for internet transit (as in: from London to anywhere in the world) 20 years ago, and this is just between two datacenters in the same city controlled by the same organisation, markup must be 10,000x or more considering these places are cross-connected with massive bundles of fiber!