This thread of comments seems to be getting somewhat off topic. I believe the point being made by open3dlabs is that copyright is basically a pay to play system for corporations which is obviously unjust. You're right that copyright isn't enforced on individuals, but DMCA is definitely enforced on small content sharing sites which have little to no recourse compared to large corporations that can flagrantly break the law.
Is this not a good idea? It makes average users more selective about what content they are sharing, and reduces scam/bot content that can currently spam post links for free.
Yeah, you are correct. I was thinking about writes but not reads. Even the databases I mentioned typically have optimizations such that when there is a stable leader, reads don't require any network.
Considering that the topic is an article is comparing raw NVMe vs EBS performance for postgres storage and GP saying that cloud is unnecessarily inefficient, I misinterpreted your comment as implying that networked storage is always an unnecessary cost. In many cases the cost of replication and availability is lower than the cost of data loss and downtime.
Latency can also be traded for availability. EBS storage provides replication and can trivially be removed/attached to new instances if the database server for some reason needs to be taken down. Any database with built-in replication/consensus (Kafka, Spanner, Dynamo, Cockroach, etc.) is making this same tradeoff and is effectively hitting the network on every storage request.
I'm no theologian but I don't really think this coheres with standard Catholic doctrine. Typically, we say that God is being itself, pure and uncaused. All things maintain their very existence through God. We know that God has intellect because the world we reside in is intelligible. God has no need to experience change or time because he actualizes their very existence, and in order to do so, must already have perfect knowledge of it. Humans, even our souls, are created beings and are not any more a part of God than anything else that exists. Jesus was unique in that he was a hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature, and even though he was an indivisible union, these natures nevertheless remained distinct.
Edit: I wrote this response before you added that this was specific to the theology of John Scotus Eriugena.
This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.
"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.
Politics is a lense of analysis that can be applied to almost anything related to the group behaviors of people. Refusing to engage with it because there are charlatans that apply these methods poorly just demonstrates an inability or lack of desire to understand. It's quite revealing btw that you decided to frame intellectual pursuits and sexual behavior as being in opposition and/or claim that the later is somehow more important.
While admittedly async is a bit of a jungle for newcomers, I am glad that it is not built into the standard library. Where you see a bunch of needlessly competing runtimes, I see a healthy variety of different packages tailored to different users and technical specializations: tokio - reasonable default and server applications; smol - desktop applications or those who prefer the simplicity; embassy - embedded applications; futures crate - runtime agnostic utilities. I will gladly reach for any one of these depending on the kind of application I am developing.
First off, in some sense everything is political. Next, I am not claiming that you can't be supporter of open source while also holding a wide array of associated political views. My point is that the concept of open source fundamentally rejects the ideal capitalist conception of the world as a bunch of purely rational self-interested agents seeking to optimize wealth and economic output. Willingly performing labor for its own sake, for the benefit of others, with no expectation of return value, is obviously not capitalist behavior.
Open-source is an inherently radical anti-capitalist philosophy. In your eyes everyone "deserves" what the market is willing to pay, but open-source developers would rather donate their time and energy to create or contribute to something that is freely accessible to anyone and everyone. Also, believe it or not, but some people are not motivated by money, and actually derive value from the process of creating software.
The issue with rug-pulls like this is that they are deceptively masquerading with this philosophy as a calculated business strategy to adopt users. Then in this case they start using deceptive tactics like removing build files so they can continue appearing to be fully open source, even though they are violating the spirit of that term. Finally, they drop the facade when it is deemed valuable enough. Even if you are a strict capitalist, there is nothing virtuous or meritocratic about these kinds of business strategies, they rely on tricky, concealed intentions, and rightfully deserve criticism.
I'll also add that there is nothing "courageous" about deciding to extract more value from your labor at the expense of public accessibility. True courage is found in acts of selfless sacrifice.
Rust has a sizable and well featured standard library at this point. I think it would be absurd to claim that the base language is "near-unusable" if you are using it for system programming, which is its intended use case.
Huge standard libraries make sense for Java, Go, Apple platform etc. because they are developed by giant enterprises that can manage the overhead. Thinner modular systems are a more natural fit for open source development.
Please don't take this personally, trying to offer this as constructive criticism. I don't find this to be a very interesting example of the language. If the main feature is a unique approach to memory/multithreading/network safety, I would like to see an example of a multithreaded networking program that uses dynamic allocations, not a ~100 line a procedure that uses static buffers and terminal IO.
When the GP says "You’ll talk to a whole lot of low class people like that on HN", I interpret that as them disparaging basically anyone who supports open source, since I believe there are not many people on HN that are overly emotional about the existence of closed source software.
Probably because they could easily have given the same advice without needing to call people on hn that encourage and support open source software "low-class".
This is just idiotic equivocation. The difference between Russia and Hitler is that Russia has legitimate national security concerns, for instance, not letting the world's largest military alliance (NATO) which is antogonistic to them, build defense infrastructure along their border, or choke off their ability to have a navy. The Nazis made no attempts to conceal the fact that one of their main national objectives was to invade eastern Europe and create a colonial German empire. Clearly you can see these two things are not the same, right?
I love the example you gave because it is demonstrative of one of the most important distinctions between your moral language and the language of geopolitics. If a Muslim attacks someone in a western country, then they will have violated a law. The recipient of the violence is a victim of an infringement of rights garunteed by the government which has authority through the social contract. On the world stage, there is no higher authority, rights, or laws. What you have are a set of nations, which by definition, are agents seeking to secure prosperity for themselves. Ukraine has certain objectives to secure their prosperity like, procuring a large conventional military or nukes so that they can defend their borders. Russia also has certain objectives that secure their prosperity, like maintaining access to the black sea and building natural gas pipelines into Europe. When these nations have objectives that conflict there are only two options: compromise or war, that's it, that is the reality. In this case neither side wanted to compromise, so there was a war.
It's also important to note that this conflict is not one-sided. Ukraine has dedicedly become a proxy for US and European power projection. This is not a genocide or some other form of needless violence. This is a classic example of powers butting heads and all parties refusing to take de-escalatory actions.
Ukraine didn't just disadvantage their neighbor. In international affairs, red lines are a common tool for expressing acceptable bounds of negotiation. Russia made it very explicit that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be conflict. We live in the real world, and "sovereignty" is not real; nations are not unconstrained agents that can do whatever they please. They have to weigh the effects of their actions and be willing and capable of defending the consequences. This has been true for all of human history, has never changed, and likely never will. You simply deluded yourself into thinking otherwise.
I will also add that in the modern world, peace has largely been maintained because the value of international commerce is much greater than the value derived from conflict. Economic integration is the best recipe for enduring tranquility. However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea, all but ensuring that an invasion of Ukraine would be a profitable (or at least not harmful). In other words, the United States miscalculated, overplayed it's hand in pursuing a containment strategy against Russia and ultimately invited violence.
> everybody knows how to live in peace. Except Russia.
Talk about an extraordinary case of recency bias. Cheap shot, I know, but I had to make it.
Europe currently defends itself because that's all it CAN do. They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII.
Except it is literally is just rational geopolitics. The story of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a single whimsical choice by a mad dictator. There has been a decades long encirclement campaign by NATO which ultimately pushed too far. That's not to say that states joining NATO did not do so willingly and of their own accord, but that it played into a larger struggle for influence that disadvantaged Russia on the world stage.
The moral dimension is also completely illusory. Ukraine is fighting a war of attrition that's funding is due to the same cold-hearted power politics that Russia subscribes to. It greatly benefits the US and EU to keep Russia in an expensive, resource-intensive, prolonged military engagement. Put another way, the US is knowingly sacrificing Ukrainian lives and infrastructure because it gives us more power; however, at the end of the day we get to drape our actions in nice sounding rhetoric about supporting national independence even though that is merely accidental. Not to mention that the Ukrainian government has legitimately persecuted Russian-speaking minority populations in the country. Obviously, this has very little to do Russia's actual motivations for the war, but the point is the Russia's actions also have accidental good effects.
Speaking from my experience at Amazon this is not the case. Any customer impact like this would necessitate a COE (correction of errors) report, which means a list of required action items to prevent such issues from happening again, which typically suck up at least man-month of labor. Not to mention the report itself, which has to be written by a manager.
In fact, there are regular AWS-wide meetings where L10 technical staff will randomly pick and review reports from across the organization. Getting picked for one of these is not a fun experience.
COEs are such a huge annoyance for teams that they create a strong incentive to be proactive in preventing issues like this from happening. One of the rules when it comes to writing COEs is that they are not the fault of individuals but processes; but in reality, no one wants to be the cause of one.
"Gothic cathedrals and Doric temples are mathematics in stone. Doubtless Pythagoras was the first in the Classical Culture to conceive number scientifically as the principle of a world-order of comprehensible things—as standard and as magnitude—but even before him it had found expression, as a noble arraying of sensuous-material units, in the strict canon of the statue and the Doric order of columns. The great arts are, one and all, modes of interpretation by means of limits based on number (consider, for example, the problem of space-representation in oil painting). A high mathematical endowment may, without any mathematical science whatsoever, come to fruition and full self-knowledge in technical spheres." ~ Spengler, Decline of the West