invisible

>but it seriously bums me out

Talk to your manager. If you don't have 1:1s, ask to have routine meetings. If your manager can't help you, alleviate your stress, or guide you forward, look for a new job.

It's hard to really say anecdotally if things were fair or unfair, but your manager's job is to help you (and selfishly, for you, they should help you grow in your career).

I'm not sure I follow the thread on how plenty of folks that are vaccinated have died (from being exposed to COVID-19, likely from those unvaccinated) means that the vaccine is not safe. The article you linked says those unvaccinated are 40x more likely to die (although it might be more like 14x with more recent data). Similarly, unvaccinated are more likely to spread COVID-19.

Unvaccinated are more likely to contract the virus from a family member. [0]

> According to the analysis, 25 percent of vaccinated contacts exposed to a household member with an infection contracted one themselves.

> In contrast, 38 percent of unvaccinated contacts got an infection.

> The study results suggest that because the viral load of vaccinated people drops off more quickly, their infection may be infectious for a shorter time than for unvaccinated people.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can...

I think I completely understand the article but still think that it's editorializing facts. Why exactly would professionals feel differently? If they had done some investigations themselves and found a series of poor contractors that all reported similar issues, I think we could take this as much more concerning. This looks like a director from a single company and a few anonymous researchers at the same company came forward with bad practices for 1000 trials.

Also, as the article points out, investigations were performed at other contractors. Wild speculation, but that could be that Pfizer didn't even need a full 44k and they just ignored 1k? (For example, they concluded the trial with 41k getting a second dose.)

I've read over both sides of this, and there is some editorializing going on in this medical journal that makes it less about facts. The title makes no mention of Ventavia, but instead mentions Pfizer. The headline doesn't specify that Ventavia managed 1/44th of the trial, nor anything factual (mostly speculation that the data integrity is questionable).

> Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight.

The questions are all whether this one company had poor practices. It mixes comments regarding the larger trial of Pfizer with this isolated company trial. At times it's hard to tell if they're referencing Pfizer or Ventavia (as "company"). An investigation found nothing remarkable at other sites managed by other contractors, but then even that is questioned because this small company wasn't investigated.

I'm not actually sure what part of this medical journal _is_ factual.

I think people are misunderstanding what I said. CF could have tested their rust implementation against Fastly's rust implementation.

I don't really think it's worth piling on the topic more, but Fastly's post (original topic) expands on why the test is poor in other ways worth reading over again.

Beyond just those points, the whole Cloudflare blog post reads like an attempt at a performance sales kill sheet. (In other words, their sales may point to this as to why folks should choose Cloudflare Workers over Fastly Compute@Edge.)

Given that there is a light and camera at many intersections where this would occur, would it be feasible for us to have some indicator if a human is in the crosswalk? We have cars that are able to detect many different types of objects in far more complex environments.

> Today, we’re excited to report that Cloudflare Workers is 196% faster than Fastly’s Compute@Edge based on the time to first byte from the tests we ran on 50 nodes using Catchpoint’s data from across the world.

Kind of? At minimum they made misleading representations. They used abbreviated explanations of how they're better and then expanded on what the test actually consisted of later on.

Not really. Cloudflare could have used their rust implementation for doing a fair comparison, instead they compared a beta product to a stable product. It's not like CF didn't have a choice to make a fair comparison.

Also basically every response to this thread regarding this is claiming the courts have decided this, which is just sensational conversation. There very well could be something more to this, but it's more likely that the judge is just airing on "let's dig into this deeper before allowing this change" which makes sense. Nothing has been concluded, the status quo remains.

Adding something like change-data-capture to a system and using that for some of the purposes that event sourcing touts seems like it goes a lot further and doesn't require making a complex, hard-to-understand system. Having a CDC system to publish events and record those can give the biggest benefits and sit alongside a much simpler system. A downside is that the real-time feature goes away.

So excited to have backed this myself. It's been...a long time coming. Not just from this kickstarter, but a past kickstarter.

The craziest part is that this is what it can do _before many people even have it in their hands_. The potential for this tech (outside of gaming even) is pretty far-reaching.

So glad that Jeri was able to get this thing to fruition this go-around amid the pandemic and all of the logistic problems that has created for creating new tech.

I'm not the GP author, but I don't think they actually said that _exactly_. I agree it was a bit vague, but the latter point of them using an old version of Chrome for their most recent update was more pertinent. They are comparing a pre-release to a stable in both cases and then not spending any effort to contrast that later.

Yep, my bad! So commutes aren't as significant a contributor as I thought. I ran through some more calculations trying to only use the US, and it looks like the Wh / $ is somewhere around 3.51. Is there any other category of use that isn't being included? This is a pretty stark difference, even being many times more than the first calculation.

Commute: 1.028 TWh

Data centers: ~3.3TWh per trillion (for USD) = 132 TWh

ATMs: 470,135 independent in the US (1.27MWh each per year) = 0.597TWh

Banks: ~98,000 in the US (PDF wasn't clear, using 60MWh each per year) = 5.88 TWh

Card networks: ~1TWh/yr (just assuming "half" of global)

Total: 140.5TWh/yr

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FB.CBK.BRCH.P5?location...

https://blog.sfgate.com/lifestyle/2020/08/31/its-electric-ho....

That's a fair statement. I'm not really even sure what the $404 trillion is after trying to look up where you were going with that (all assets globally).

We should do an attempt with just US dollars. It looks like there is about $40 trillion in actual physical/digital circulation (i.e. not investments in things like crypto, buildings, stocks).

Driving even an electric vehicle uses ~250-300 Wh per mile (we can round down to 250Wh).

Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup have about 738k (we can round down to 700k) employees and the average US commute is 32 miles (we can round down to 25). We'll assume ~235 days of work a year.

25 * 0.250 * 700000 * 235 = 1,028.1 TWh to commute for bank employees of the top four US banks per year

Which is about 25.7 Wh / $. We can safely assume this is significantly lower than reality already since we only counted the top four US banks and rounded all of our figures down. This also doesn't count any other industry required to keep USD working (like datacenters, as referenced in the paper you linked).

Edit: I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything, I'm just genuinely curious if this "bitcoin is worse" statement is correct.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but this doesn't seem to include the daily commute for bank employees, the waste from each bank, and the collective volume of mail delivered.

An issue with discussion: https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx/issues/7837

The only fix so far is removing the feature.

>According to the publication, multi-tenant environments where non-admin users have permissions to create Ingress objects are most affected by this issue.

Ouch! I guess this means lots of secret/password rotations for k8s admins coming soon. I've always wondered if there are public Kubernetes multi-tenant setups in the wild rather than just ones with admins and developer roles/namespaces.

Someone else mentioned politics, but I think it's really apt to draw some lines since these are federal crimes.

Politicians and government agents will work toward getting legislation or contracts through and then "retire" to work privately for the same companies. This is probably not legal (i.e. bribery), but it's basically impossible to prove the crime. On a similar note, politicians can ask for contributions as part of lobbying efforts that go directly to their campaigns. That might not go right into their pocket (which somehow make it legal), but it certainly makes continuing their career easier.

I don't think either is particularly morally just, but the similarities are pretty stark. The government (and public) end up losing and becoming the victim just like Netflix was the victim of these actions.

What's bonkers is that _your own data_ was also accessible. Who's to say other users didn't get that data and choose to not report and kept the data?

Your own outrage to your data being exposed would have been perfectly reasonable.

A bunch of family I have that are retired spend time shitposting and sharing political junk shares. It’s like forwarding spam, honestly.

You're awesome dang! Thanks for all you do. That things are up as much as they are is pretty great.

I, and probably a bunch of others, would be pretty interested in a write up of the challenges and how you solved them if you could find time after things settle.

For some purposes, awk+xargs can replace hours of work to write a tool to automate some process. It's my go-to for ops work that I don't expect to live very long and just needs to _happen_.

Also, happy 1337 karma day :).

We are on a news site focused mostly on tech, startups, and entrepreneurship that often just has other intellectual conversations. It makes sense that the general flavor of submissions leans tech.

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

If you're taking what I said to mean "of course individuals should just do better," I definitely didn't mean to imply that. Exactly the opposite, actually.

It's a bunch of smaller decisions that are hampered by new technology and lack of economies of scale, among many other compounding factors that result in poor consumer/business/utility/government choices (for the environment). I think sequestering may be an important part of that, but it's still new technology.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The free market is slowly moving toward alternative fuels, albeit slowly. That's part of why your local energy utility is likely using a combination of sources. It's why you can see solar panels when you drive around any non-shaded resident affluent communities. Many governments around the world see the issue and have made agreements to address it, insofar as they can and on a timeline of a century.

It's been seemingly impossible to motivate the world to switch to alternatives to fuel. We're between a rock and a hard place with society and the environment.

It seems like there isn't even a conspiracy, it's just a combination of poor choices, greed, and new technology. Solar is great, but often it's more expensive than just consuming grid power or has unpredictable payoffs. Wind has a lot of upfront costs. Massive batteries are just starting to roll out. Energy companies are trying to keep prices low in the short-term and keep things reliable, so they mostly use cheap and plentiful fuel. Consumers without a lot of money can't put the capital down for a new car, so they buy used or cheap. It happens that most used/cheap cars use petrol-based fuel. Additionally, car companies have a product that sells, why risk that or their reputation?

Finally, you have the government deciding policy based on much more than just the environment.

Perhaps this will create a better storage mechanism, but addressing getting to carbon neutrality feels very dreary.

Perhaps instead we could levy a 0.05% or $300 income tax, whichever is less, and have a tax credit if you do not own a ICE vehicle to negate that.

For sure, but I see a ton of SUVs and trucks on the road that cost a lot too.

> The average new-vehicle retail transaction price in December was a record $38,077, according to J.D. Power.

> That’s the price customers actually pay, after taking incentives into account. The average for trucks is above $40,000, analysts said.

> Light trucks accounted for a record 75.9% share of U.S. auto sales in 2020, up from 71.7% in 2019. In 2012, just eight years ago, trucks were 53% of the total.

https://www.forbes.com/wheels/news/2020-truck-suv-car-sales-...

I think you're being sarcastic with this line of questioning, but at some price the answer is most certainly "yes."

Also, the car market is insane. $40k for a new vehicle isn't really that crazy _right now_ (especially for SUVs and trucks) and some folks are paying more for a used car than a new just to be able to get a vehicle immediately.

Where did the title for this post come from?

> Villages where cloth masks were distributed experienced a 5 percent reduction in symptoms, while villages where surgical masks were distributed saw a reduction of 12 percent.

Also: this is a specific set of circumstances with many variables.