443 karma · joined August 11, 2023
If the cluster is indeed necessary though, I think NixOS can be a great base to stand up a Kubernetes cluster on top of.
> [...]
> * has a huge amount of pre-packaged software available (helm charts)
> * and most importantly: allows you to stand up mostly the same infrastructure in the cloud, on your own servers (k3s), and locally (KIND), and thus doesn't tie you into a specific cloud provider
NixOS. I have no clue about kubernetes, but I think NixOS even goes much deeper in these points (e.g. kubernetes is at the "application layer" and doesn't concern itself with declaratively managing the OS underneath, if I understand right). The other points seem much more situational, and if needed kubernetes might well be worth it. For something that could be a single server running a handful of services, NixOS is amazing.
Not really.
> [...] I don’t know if they’re still in common use.
They are. The myth that they are somehow inherently more secure is still widespread.
Yes, exactly, while reviewing and merging other peoples PRs. Technically I could still rewrite in other ways, but while squashing in the web UI was the most comfortable workflow.
I've recently started to like squashing after usually preferring rebase merges, because with squashes I have an easy option to rewrite the commit message and edit out all of those meaningless "fix typo", "improve" and "now actually working" lines...
The same applies to MIT and BSD licenses. That was my point.
> It would be rather pointless
Agreed, but nothing in the license text prohibits it in any way. Even if it did, as the sole author of some code you are not bound by whatever license you pick, even if it was a copyleft license that would require other people to share their modifications.
The MIT and BSD licenses also do not necessarily require the release of source code. It is just that if you license code under those terms and pass it to someone else, then they receive the rights to do a lot of things with the code, including releasing it. I don't think that is much different with the CC licenses (the non-commercial variant is definitely not open source though).
Just to add to this: don't just think apt or rpm, also think conda/mamba, homebrew or pipx. Nix, and I am sure guix as well, unify this "traditional" distinction between system and user package managers.
A status pages job is to inform users about potential issues. A user will seek out the status page specifically if they currently see issues on their end, but usually won't if they don't. Therefore underreporting is a huge issue, because you essentially tell your users that the issue must be on their end even if it is not, but overreporting issues when there are none hurts no one and the chances are high that no user even sees it.
I am certain there are some exceptions and edge cases to this, but in my experience nixpkgs is the largest and most up-to-date repository of all, by a wide margin. Did you use nixpkgs-unstable or a stable release?
Although I would say the "easy syntax" mostly applies to numerical code only, i.e. numpy code and the same computations in fortran would look very similar since fortran has similar syntax for vector-based computations, something that e.g. C does not have at all.
I am not exactly sure what that would look like, but I'd imagine it would at least be difficult to match the efficiency of a combined cycle power plant to generate electricity at home for the heat pump. Then again, as you say, you would have the "waste" heat locally to harness as well. Although this waste heat in power plants can be used for district heating as well, so it might also be used in that situation.
Anyway, my main point was that the sentence "heat pumps make much more sense when you don't burn things to power them." makes it sound like burning the same thing to heat your house directly was more efficient when in fact it is not, and potentially by a pretty wide margin.
Just to make this clear: I was already comparing to a high efficiency furnace. I.e. a standard air-to-water heat pump (relatively common as a heat pump at least here in germany) would be more efficient at heating a house with electricity purely generated from natural gas than a natural gas furnace would be at its theoretical limit of 100%.
> This would have other benefits because you would not have to throw away an old furnace for no reason.
As long as there are no synthetic fuels for those furnaces (that can be made climate neutral) there is a very good reason to get rid of all of them: any burned fossil fuel is too much burned fossil fuel. We need to get down to zero.
A heat pump that is entirely powered by electricity generated from natural gas is most likely still more efficient than burning that gas to directly heat a house. Obviously though, using renewables is better.
> No, I'm saying it's confusing to use terminology that's also separately legal teminology to describe something.
Well, you seem to argue that one should not use the term "discrimination" if it is not legally defined to be such, because that would be confusing.
Let's assume a hypothetical situation in which the law did not state that you cannot discriminate based on sex/gender and the minimum wage law stated that woman have a lower minimum wage than men. Would you consider this to be gender discrimination?
If yes, what are the fundamental differences between this hypothetical situation and the real world situation of lower minimum wages for younger people? Why would you consider one to be discriminatory and the other to not be?
If no, then I have no further questions. We seem to have a very different understanding of what discrimination is.
I for one would definitely consider this hypothetical example to be discrimination and obviously apply the same logic to the actual situation as well.
So it must be defined as illegal in the law to be considered discrimination? If we remove e.g. race or gender from that law, then those types of discrimination are suddenly OK? That seems like a bad argument.
But yes, those laws should explicitly mention age. Unfortunately, here in Germany, that is not the case.
> This is what a lawmaker judged the minimum wage age-based cases to be as well.
If a lawmaker judged that the positive "none" outweighs the negative of "lower minimum wage for younger people" then that lawmaker simply made a bad decision. Just because they are a lawmaker does not mean they can't be criticised.
I'd say minimum wage should at least ensure that everyone with a job can live a life without poverty and in dignity. That does not sound like a non-idealised concept. If the real-world minimum wages satisfy this ideal is a different matter.
> If you're just defining age discrimination as "a legal differentiation based on age" then I agree with you.
Is there another good definition? You have to recognise that some rules are disadvantageous to some groups of people (in this case grouped by age) to properly weigh their disadvantage against the advantage the given rule is meant to create (e.g. to not have toddlers recklessly drive around in cars) and then decide if the given rule is reasonable and fair. I guess you could argue that a law is not really that discriminatory if its positives outweigh the disadvantages it puts some people at, but it would still put some people at said disadvantage and in the case of different minimum wages by age I simply see no such reasoning for its positives (i.e. none) to outweigh the negatives, and therefore it is discriminatory.
> A bit like not letting 7-year-olds drive on public roads.
While not exactly with 7, where I live 8-year-olds can drive on public roads and from age 10 onwards they are even required to do so. Of course I am talking about bicycles and only if there is no (usable) bike lane. Not having 7-year-olds drive cars is just another case of "it is in the publics best interest, and it also does not hurt them much".
That's why someone's financial situation should be considered before deciding to have kids. It is a conscious decision that is actively taken and therefore no reason to put younger people at a disadvantage.
> As for age discrimination: is only letting people vote at a certain age, age discrimination?
Yes, that is age discrimination. It is usually accepted, because there is an argument for it: in the public's view you should be mature enough to understand the importance of elections and inform yourself before you can vote. That maturity certainly depends on age to some degree. Nevertheless, since it is still age discrimination, the specific age is often debated and here in germany it was reduced multiple times in the past, for different elections. I have even seen arguments that said kids should have a sort of "proxy" vote through their parents, by deciding who to vote for together.
You are assuming that age equals experience, but a 19 year old might be working at the coffee shop for a year already when a 25 year old is just starting. Shouldn't the 19 year old have a higher pay then?