HN user
When people say “exactly once” is impossible they really mean in the face of failure at the queue level.
And what exactly is impossible with that? Just wait it out, i.e. like all the CP systems do (as per CAP).
Given all the things that can go wrong, it's impossible for any messaging system to guarantee exactly-once delivery.
It's possible to guarantee exactly-once delivery, just not in bounded time, but eventually. That's what FLP impossibility is about, impossibility to achieve consensus (e.g. exactly-once) in bounded time. But if you are talking in the context of semantics, it's a totally different thing, it's a computation model and it's absolutely possible to have exactly-once semantics, regardless whether you achieve it by waiting, like consensus-based systems, or by using special data types and operations that can be performed without waiting and eventually converge, like CRDT systems.
Morality doesn't exist outside of "socially prescribed conclusions", it's actually a pure social thing, it has no other function, but to help individuals make socially acceptable choices.
Children can reason morally and do, they just didn't learn a lot of morals to reason with yet. Morals, i.e. what is good and what is bad, is something people never stop learning. Obviously learning moral values from cartoons isn't helping in situations with real people.
It's not, it's an Elbrus architecture with VLIW-style instruction set, own compilers, etc.
I do not know much about subject but I confidently claimed 100% effect, therefore confirming what I said :)
Well, that's not a Dunning-Kruger Effect either, but maybe a confirmation bias mixed with survivorship bias.
Search HN for the effect, you'll see criticism of people citing it from years back, so it's not this year's thing at all.
You can try to explain that the effect doesn't actually apply to any pointing out of the effect in someone's comment, maybe even cite the study.
SW engineers work in OSs, drivers, firmware, and applied areas likes comms and robotics
That would be system programming, part of computer engineering actually [1], not software engineering. Also software engineering usually does include some computer engineering.
From one perspective types (and I mean proofs encoded in types) is a compile time measure against bugs, while supervisors is a runtime measure. It's much easier and more productive to not do proofs and rely on runtime architecture for reliability, it adds relatively little complexity and asks very little from developers, it stays almost the same as regular software development. And it's still necessary to do regardless whether you have proofs or not.
And types like machine types are of course irrelevant for BEAM, well, maybe they'll start to matter a bit with JIT, but probably still not, BEAM with JIT is still not going to be a performance miracle.
Right, but the point is those materials are not for starting a sustainable business, but a startup, a whole different thing as you understand. For sustainable business you probably don't want to listen to anyone involved in VC-funded startups, it's in their interest even to sabotage you.
It's also not random. I've talked a couple of times in my life to strangers in public transport, well, they actually talked to me, both times somehow accidentally people who I talked to were IT professionals, one was a programmer, the other one was a sysadmin and it was in the 90s in former soviet republic, hard to randomly encounter such people back then.
You should read some Nassim Taleb or something, because what you are saying is too nonsensical, like there is no awareness of chances in your arguments whatsoever, as if this dystopian concept of merit is somehow actually real.
It's not ironic, such dystopia is particularly liked and promoted by capitalist scumbags, because it lets them justify exploitation, inequality, overwork, etc. But of course for any thinking person it's obvious that it's an awful awful idea, as if a kid raised by well educated parents who can therefore do really well in school deserves more, than a kid raised by uneducated parents who have no idea how to teach kids to do well in school.
It's "strong" in that you can see some effect in blood of people tutoring vs people waiting. But that's about it, you can't draw other conclusions from it. It says absolutely nothing about volunteering, health, being kind, etc.
Sure, but it has nothing to do with volunteering or health.
Exactly, it's not possible to control for that, just propaganda to promote volunteering as a good thing.
How on earth can they control for that in short term studies? Is it even possible to get any statistical significance on that? Smells like bullshit, there is no way there is causation on health from volunteering.
Think about it, if you are volunteering you are likely to not just have good health, but afford good health care, have plenty of free time for various activities, less stress in life, enjoy and seek social activities, outdoor activities, etc. All those things could impact health, but not volunteering itself.
Is it really important though, as the only solution is still just HEPA filter. Expensive air filters usually have dust sensors/particle counters in them, so there is some indication when the air is dirty and, you know, anything PM2.5 is harmful either way.
Our current culture over-values individuals and loves the myth of the one wo/man show. Teams are boring. Give us someone to follow.
People repeat it often, but it's not true, it can't explain Blankpink, BTS, Twice, Red Velvet, etc. It's probably just americanism to emphasize individuals, but big music is produced by teams (and not small teams) regardless whether it appears to look like an individual.
But it's not the reality though, ultimately software doesn't want to commoditize hardware, it wants to have choices, sure, but only for itself, so it can lock people in to a specific choice to sell it to people too and with high margins. Vice versa is true too, hardware wants to build software ecosystem around it, but in a such way that uses only its hardware, not other hardware. This is why wintel is a thing.
Only from a quick glance it appears that we all win, but really none of us can win from this. Worse, megacorps don't really compete with each other, their view on competition is pretty perverse, they "compete" as long as such "competing" doesn't eat into juicy high margin profits that exist only on monopolized markets, so it's more like dividing markets and forming oligopolies, but not commodotizing each other.
I'm not sure why you say it's interesting, signed binaries was always known to be a useless measure against APT level threats, getting signing keys is probably the easiest thing at that level. I remember Microsoft even publicly admitted they can't do shit against APT, so all of their "security" PR is essentially not real security, but that's been a thing with all megacorps for years now.
as well as the fact that the inventor of TLA+, Leslie Lamport, is very well-known for his work in distributed systems, led to TLA+
But didn't lead him to come up with decent distributed algorithms. PAXOS is a negative example here for example, where Leslie said that formalization naturally derives such algorithms, but in reality many years and many iterations on the idea from many different researchers and engineers is what led to something actually useful in practice, as PAXOS wasn't, and formalization was by far the least important thing ever.
You can look into TLA+ without any specific reason, it's relatively easy to grasp and doesn't take much time. And it isn't actually that popular in distributed systems, as it demands certain software development process most real world distributed systems can't benefit from, the only examples of distributed systems are literally distributed cloud services made at megacorps no less, like in the video. But mostly it's purely people who are into formal proofing who play with it, regardless of whether there are actual benefits. I don't like doing it and was never able to justify using it on any real project, I was always able to find more beneficial ways to spend this time on instead. And tiny cases where I really needed to make sure of something I just covered the whole state space with tests and simulations. Maybe if it wasn't written in java and all the tooling was some portable C easily integratable anywhere things could be different, but as it is I can't even accept having jvm everywhere.
Yep. Customers are inherently limited all on their own, they do not stay customers for too long, do not consume unlimited resources and so on. Unlimited storage, especially of photos, is probably the most self limiting service there is. How much photos customers can upload or download is limited by storage they have, bandwidth to the servers, willingness to wait for photos to be uploaded and downloaded, camera resolution, time spent on taking photos, on viewing them, etc. I suspect even getting to a TB of remotely stored photos is almost impossible for an average customer.
youtube-dl works
And there's always going to be people who push the boundaries and hunt for loopholes. It's in the nature of rating/censorship regimes.
That's not true. This is something censors say, because they don't want objectively specific criteria for censoring things, they want the power to arbitrarily apply censorship to anything they feel like and that is in the nature of censorship, all that "power always pursues more power" thing we know from political science. Which also implies if you make the criteria very specific, the power to censor things will be very limited and nothing to test the boundaries of or to hunt for loopholes.
I remember broadband ISPs used to do that in the end of 90s, early 2000s with high price per MB of traffic, had to write off overages left and right (viruses on windows were a number 1 issue), then competition kicked in and "scumbag billing" disappeared, first they just got rid of overage charges and started merely throttling speed after caps and eventually got rid of caps altogether. Similar things were happening in hosting industry, colocation and dedicated servers in particular, competition eliminated overage charges too. Somehow "clouds" think they are too different, as if they don't compete with traditional hosting offerings, but being scambags trying to keep their high margins certainly pushes people away. I used to be an early AWS and Rackspace customer (remember when they were two top choices?), but haven't really used "clouds" since then, they are simply not competitive for literally anything, at least for someone like me, who's been doing infrastructure for decades.
how do you encourage them to tackle bigger technical problems? Those that lay the foundation for the new people to do their job more easily and on-board quicker?
Isn't gitlab known for disastrously poor infrastructure with all the long outages? I.e. the exact things where people need to take their time to tackle bigger technical problems, not complete short tasks. I guess this attitude explains it, at least partially.
This is about political PR machines with unusual wealth lying to Facebook users on an industrial scale to control what they believe and how they act.
It doesn't control how people act, but for the rest this is exactly what mass media was always doing, influencing beliefs and opinions of the masses, never able to criticize powerful and wealthy where it truly mattered. Facebook only made this space a bit more diverse, actually letting some criticism in, weakening mass media influence. But it's ridiculous to think this affected "democracy", the US isn't even considered to be a democracy outside of the US, but more like a capitalist-ruled police country.