HN user

dradtke

235 karma

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/dradtke; my proof: https://keybase.io/dradtke/sigs/_cIV2UjyeFHvOIyo2szrnBVssh2Q4Pjl12k3CnSYjvQ ]

Posts20
Comments75
View on HN

Fundamentally, consumers and producers are at odds with each other in certain ways. For instance, it's best for customers if every shop was open 24x7, but absolutely horrible for the employees needed to make that happen.

Walmart is the extreme end of satisfying consumers above all else. Customers get a single, climate-controlled location to take care of nearly all their shopping, with good prices; but it comes at the expense of the employees, local community, and factory workers. Unfortunately, most customers don't know or care about those downsides because the experience is catered so heavily for them, and it's hard to get people to sacrifice material comfort for benefits that appear so abstract.

I think the idea is to improve the sustainability of a city by reducing people's need to travel by car, which uses energy, and to improve its livability by ensuring easy access to most (or all) of life's amenities.

That doesn't mean it should be impossible to travel beyond the 15-minute limit. Other forms of long-form transit, like trains and cars, will always have a place, but not everyone thinks that they should be required to simply live.

True, but it's way easier to add centralization to a system that is decentralized by nature than it is to somehow decentralize something that is centralized by nature.

One of the big points Bill Gates makes in his recent book on climate change is that once the genie is out of the bottle in terms of lifestyle, there's no going back. It's naive to expect people to willingly reduce their energy use enough to make an impact, and immoral when you consider all the people in poor villages that don't even have electricity yet.

The solution is, in a nutshell, to electrify everything, and push to make electricity clean and plentiful. Anything else is doomed to fail because we can't beat climate change by reducing our carbon footprint; we have to eliminate it entirely.

From that perspective, cloud energy usage is not a problem, since it's already electrified by nature. Now we just need to stop emitting carbon in order to make electricity (among other things).

Probably because America has only about a quarter of the population that India has? Also, the ideal of the American homestead or even suburban home is one that doesn't place a high value on sharing space or being close to your neighbors.

OpenSUSE MicroOS 6 years ago

Does anyone know any VPS providers that are planning to support this? I'm using Linode primarily because they are one of the few providers that provides openSUSE images, but they haven't said anything about supporting MicroOS yet.

True, software works just dandy these days if you remove the "attack" factor, but software isn't deployed into an attack-free space the same way a plane flies through safe air.

As anyone who has ever logged into a Linux server to be greeted with the number of failed logins since the last successful one knows, _everything_ is under constant attack when it comes to digital technology. That's a large part of the problem, but the other part is that most people don't take security seriously enough. I would be more likely to trust a voting machine that isn't networked at all, with votes periodically extracted manually onto an encrypted USB drive or something, but good luck getting these manufacturers to not put wi-fi and bluetooth in everything.

I'll just end on this note: https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/10/defcon-event-reveals-eas...

I like to use a pattern like this: given a resource defined as an interface:

    type Database interface {
        Users() ([]*User, error)
    }
I like to create an explicitly-mocked version of it like this:
    type MockDatabase struct {
        UsersStub func() ([]*User, error)
    }

    func (m MockDatabase) Users() ([]*User, error) {
        if m.UsersStub == nil {
            panic("MockDatabase.UsersStub is nil")
        }
        return (m.UsersStub)()
    }
Then you can create the resources you need, and define how they work, at the top of your test:
    func TestSomething(t *testing.T) {
        db := MockDatabase{
            UsersStub: func() ([]*User, error) {
                ...
            }
        }

        // use db here
    }
This works well as long as the things you're testing take all the resources they need as parameters.

The real problem is that people don't realize how expensive all that infrastructure actually is: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...

The suburban lifestyle needs to be subsidized in order to be sustainable, but good luck getting people to keep up with proper infrastructure investment. Even cities are failing at it (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...), but suburbs have even more infrastructure to maintain with a much smaller tax base.

The biggest thing payments processors are concerned about is fraud. Certain lines of business are risky because they simply result in more fraud, plus there's a whole other level of restrictions enforced by the banks themselves. I don't know what the exact reasoning was behind the ban in the article, but there are entire teams dedicated to developing risk models that attempt to identify merchants that will end up resulting in a loss before it happens.

Payments processors like PayPal may just be middlemen between banks, but if the merchant owes the bank money and is suddenly nowhere to be found, the processor is the one who takes the hit.