131 karma · joined June 3, 2014
We are successfully running Lambda functions connecting to AWS Aurora MySQL using IAM authentication. It has some quirks but after figuring it out, works well.
Just run a connection pool with only 1 connection and expect some additional latency on cold start, though it's negligible compared to loading libraries, runtime, etc.
The reality in a few years time will be a multi-cloud environment where it's the cloud itself that will be commoditized. So let's make great open source projects work well with that:
1. Provide X options for deployment on many clouds/orchestrators - k8s, terraform, serverless, etc.
2. Work on top of clouds and easily integrate with them, e.g. use existing permission systems of AWS, GCloud, Azure, service discovery systems, secret management systems, parameter systems, log aggregators and many others. So in this approach, pricing would still be controlled by the OSS company, by paying for machine time or per-request.
Being web-based gives you a standard way for fetching and displaying content. It's just a matter of time that the performance improves. Especially when many people are experimenting with it.
> maybe one day we can't even reach for a native email client because it will be unmaintained in favour of the hackable html webstack email client.
It's definitely possible, once the browser becomes the new OS.
So then the line can be anywhere between completely random and a single person. What about a group of people, like maybe two (a couple), several (a family, close friends) or a bunch (small company)?
My point is that i'd imagine many people will also have a problem with those group selections too. It's not very clear where to draw the line.
But in general, do we have a problem with targeting, or just with keeping data about individual people? What if you could target without keeping data about individuals:
- some people (e.g. Brave browser) are working on keeping the data only locally and having the browser choose the ads to be shown.
- in the future, you could have your local personal AI keeping the data and just selecting remote ads.
Instead you can keep it in stocks of companies you believe in, like startups and interesting moonshots.
It all ends up with the question - do you want the economy to decide where to focus the value (the diffusion) or do you want to decide yourself?
But if you have this amount of money in the first place, you are statistically in the better place to decide than the economy.
You always need to ask these questions. Perhaps senior people who have immune systems as 20-year olds, are much more likely to cycle in old age. Or there is some other reason that causes both.
Not if the amounts are different.
> Capability and intelligence are starkly contrasted by luck and birth, and this is a problem. One creates meritocracy, the other monarchy
Yes, and that is unfortunate. I don't have the numbers at hand, but at least in US, it's still on capability side, if I remember well. Not sure about Europe.
> It can also be generated out of nothing, and by destroying wealth a la broken window fallacy.
Sure, it can. Yet an interventional/evil government must be taken outside of this argument I think, just as e.g. thermonuclear war. The rules indeed break down then.
1. Sell $500M of shares they are keeping, hence dropping the price of the companies they are invested in. Employees of these companies lose.
2. Give the $500M, but to whom? Can be to "the poor", but what will be generated this way? The people will be better off temporarily (some of them permanently, of course), but the money will randomly radiate away to the whole economy. But you can alternatively give the money by investing in e.g. startups, incubators, hence magnifying the potential success of ideas you believe in, and people who can statistically get things done better that the average person. The side effect is that you'll be probably richer from the new investments.
Money is not a static resource rotated around the world.
- It's a measure of capability/intelligence/luck/circumstances of birth.
- It can be generated out of (generally) 'getting things done'. Two people creating things out of nowhere are both richer.
- It's a magnifying glass you can use to advance ideas you believe in.
- It flows from those who spend it, to those who generate more than spending (so, by definition, are able generate more of it by using it - the statistically "rich")
In the game, you can easily let the AI play against itself countless times. Much, much slower in real life.
Until we have good enough simulators/approximators of reality, AI can't learn fast. However, they can already learn driving in GTA, so who knows?
As for goals, they are indeed better defined in games. But we can create artificial goals attached to the real life: - goal: GPS sensor reports specific position - goal: the camera reports a recognised object in a specific position - goal: a button was pressed (signal reaching the AI e.g. through the cloud)
Restraint can't appear out of nowhere, especially when bloating the website frequently works - more ad revenue, more information about existing visitors and potential new customers.
These needs won't just disappear, so yes, the problem needs a technical solution.
This post about XRP applies to roughly every other cryptocurrency too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/7pzd7f/heres_what_w...
Yes. Always with a choice of creating your own rules and convincing other to switch to them.
Decentralization in this context would mean different rules for every participant, which is not something that we want - an extreme example of individualism where everyone has different beliefs, so a group cannot accomplish anything.
Main reasons are deducing centralization and more control for protocol designers to fine-tune incentives and punishments, to increase security.
Fundamentally, this technology implements distributed trust. You can put some information there and it will remain, forever. Everyone can see that this data (and hence, some event in the world) is there, was created at particular time by a particular person. You can tell someone: "Hey, I did X and you can see it here".
Sure, it's slow as hell now, but look forward 10 years.
What if people in year e.g. 1000CE suddenly got telepathy (internet) and ability to persist each other's thoughts? How would that change their society?
It goes like this: proxy (cash/cryptocurrency) -> belief -> result/other resource
It's changing a bit in the crypto space. Take a look at:
However, the control can't really extend to remote work (I'm sure VR headsets will make it easy enough) - workers can live in N countries and it's not like the government will start controlling their every minute. Some countries will surely be on the crypto-economy side too.
And it's not like those countries will stay idle - people will be directly incentivised to immigrate to them. Some wars may be fought because of it, sanctions or dictators will try to prevent it.
But in the end there is nothing any government can do really: a tool now exists to send any kind of value any distance in a matter of a second, without a trace, using maybe even thoughts alone. It's as if a completely new law of physics suddenly appeared. Everyone will eventually have to adapt.
- a standard function packaging and manifest that each vendor will support
- cheaper + easier tracing, logging, graphs
Research is currently ongoing in stable coins like https://makerdao.com/ In the following decades we will just begin to understand what it means to have decentralised and programmable value. Perhaps we won't use ANY currency in the future and the value of everything will be dynamic and personalised. Say, someone with low tolerance for risk will see more stable prices but slightly higher. Expressed in currency "minutes of watching TV".
Anything really is possible.