KoenDG

Hard disagree on that message.

The argument of "the user" is similar to that for "the web user" where web design is mostly about not making people think. You want them getting to what they want as fast as possible, so no reading, no extra activities, get them to their goal... because that usually means a transaction.

In this case, we should also get the user to their goal. Which is different from that of a web user. The goal here should be to give the "user", which is mostly going to be a developer or someone trying to perform an action, the best possible info on how to accomplish that action and what went wrong the time before that.

So that they can see what needs to change immediately and there should be no 2nd time with yet another error message.

The context is different, but both approaches are about best serving the user in their respective context.

I recall someone building a docker image specifically for the purpose of setting up a development environment.

A large amount of inter-connected projects for a SaaS-like service, all mounted inside the docker container, with some very specific libraries pre-compiled in the docker image, that used to take 30+ minutes to build.

And now they're just in a docker image, that will work on linux and mac and I guess windows too.

Nice idea in theory.

So, 100M degrees, huh?

Absolve me of my ignorance, but how exactly does one shield that? Is there an upper limit to what can be shielded/contained?

The nice thing about this website it the extra explanation on most of the options, with considerations explained.

Future political generations abusing nuclear power for their own goals is something I hadn't yet considered.

Potentially extremely dangerous.

I see a bunch of "bad thing X was said about our product, we developers of said product say that our product does not do aforementioned bad things".

So literally like any product saying "We of product X recommend product X".

And also the fact that if they didn't put out this document, they might later get sued and the lack of response towards "The Social Dillema" may be used as an argument that they don't care. And as such, they lose a case.

But about that data...

See, I've always heard Facebook makes the largest part of its money by selling data about its users.

Is that not true? Or, even worse, was it wrong of me to assign value to articles and news stories that stated this? If so, why?

What about the reverse? Would there be those who consider it foolish to place stock in a statement that says Facebook does not sell user data, or sells it anonymized?

It feels to me like a deliberate attempt to move all conversation on the subject into the territory of "you can't really know for sure, so SHUT UP".

Get people to stop talking about it, by virtue of casting doubt on everything anyone says.

Meanwhile, Facebook keeps doing whatever it's doing. Nothing changes.

Facebook could fix this problem by opening up about what it does with the data. But it refuses to do that. Trade secrets, I suppose?

Either way, it's Facebook who's handling the data, not us. As such, all responsibility falls on them, not us.

Oh hey, more data gathering.

Same with batteries, far as I'm aware.

Can't actually be recycled. Just gathered and put in very large warehouses and nothing is done with it.

That's what our chemist teacher told us about 10 years back, anyway. So for me that remains in the "no idea what's actually true" camp.

Personally, I have a github private repo where I put everything in named directories.

Small cleanup every now and then.

Can't recall where something is? Grep it.

Hard disagree on the first point.

Anchors are perfectly fine for jumping to a specific point on a page. Nearly all documentation websites do it, wikipedia does it, etc...

It's literally in the texts from back in 1995: https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/1995-archive/Elements/A.html

"This allows for the form HREF="#identifier" to refer to another anchor in the same document."

As Linus Torvalds says with Linux: don't break userspace. If userspace has made something work, don't break that.

This site could really use a filter option for cost of the product being mentioned.

Never heard of Teamscale before, yet it has a lot of votes in all its categories.

Also one of those expensive ones.

Sweet, thanks for the replies. I hadn't considered simply using a bookmarklet, even.

Highlights all hyperslinks on a page in yellow

    javascript:(function(){for(i=0;i<document.links.length;i++)document.links[i].style.backgroundColor='#ffff00';})();

I remember this happening: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/docker-snap-18-09-9-error/14171...

Not fun to think that could have happened on a production env if people didn't disable snap.

Kindof like a private stackoverflow... or something else...

I've tried Confluence but without strict adherence to a set of internal rules, that can easily become a mess.

Indeed.

My first question in these situations is: why didn't they go for the internal documentation? And if they did, why isn't that good enough?

That, and proper internal documentation. And if that exists, encourage people to use it.

Usually when a single person is swamped with questions by co-workers, this will be because the information isn't properly documented in some sort of internal repository.

Wouldn't be the first time I've heard it argued that this takes too much time to implement.

I'd argue that it takes far less time than fielding all those questions manually.

Intellij's code analysis(and other tools as well) warn about this. Particularly they recommend not sticking URL objects in Set or Map structures, due to the inherent equality check.

I'm going to assume that it's true.

And I'm also going to say: If Burger King is forced to get a separate stove(or whatever it's called in the industrial-sized context they're in) just for that 1 burger, they will cancel that burger.

That's my prediction. Because it's too much of an up-front cost.

I'm very glad that this burger has entered the chain and is getting both the vegan/vegetarian community, as well as regular meat-eating people, like myself, in on it.

If people who eat meat start choosing this over a regular burger, it's a win. If this drives previously non-existing traffic to burger king, all of which uses this one product, it's a win.

This is about changing the industry at large. About creating big orders and showing the industry that this is worth investing in. And eventually: normalizing it.

We can solve the problem of the not-yet-vaporized grease particles later.

I'm not saying we should ignore it. I'm saying it's not a current priority. But it will be later.

I've tried the burger, and I liked it, I'll definitely pick it again.

half a million tables...

In how many databases? Spread across how many machines? Using hardware that is how old?

It may well be a good project, but statements like that aren't inspiring of confidence.

The thing with tech companies is their desire for most of their employees to be in-house.

Causing a mass of people to arrive at a location that previously did not have that.

Over time, of course.

People who, due to the nature of their job and their employer, earn way more money than the average working person.

And when 10 people like this go for the 1 available house on the market, guess what happens? The price of the house goes up. Up to a point where only 1 of the bidder is willing to pay that price. Or rent.

Notice that I said "willing to pay" as opposed to "what that person can afford".

Supply and Demand is nice in theory, but really, pricing is more a game of "ask the maximum amount you can get away with".

And of course, owners of property in the same region can't let their property sit at a value much lower than the property around them. If the property around them can go for a certain amount, then so can they.

And this process repeats unendingly. Making it impossible for people with non-tech jobs to get affordable housing. And if not for the big tech company, it never would have happened.

So yeah, it is 100% correct to put the blame on tech companies. If not for them, this would not have occured in the first place.

When it comes to defending one's citizens, the attitude of "that'll probably never happen, it'll be fine" doesn't exactly sound like a solid foundation. And I doubt any government around the world, worth its salt, has that attitude.

True, it all sounds like scaremongering, but the question is: what's stopping people from actually doing this?

Crime and violence already exist. And if we look at history, it is clear that it has changed with the times. What logical sense is there in thinking they will not follow the changes in technology today?

The events described are but a possibility. Yet, I do feel we should not dismiss it, simply because we don't like it.

Though perhaps not the case, it sounds to me like you're saying "let's not consider the morality of the situation".

Moving it to a later part of the text is a great way to get people to ignore it.

The abstract speaks of "race fuel", so it sounds like this study is focussing not merely on "does it belong in that category" but more on "is it an effective alternative to professional race fuels"?

And from the looks of it, yes.

Just a thought: how's the integration with the Linux kernel going?

I recall reading a few months ago that

1. There are significant differences between the "main" kernel and the one android uses.

2. This was a choice in early development.

3. Efforts are underway to largely undo this, making them as similar as possible.

And as per usual, I can't find the article anymore.

It's like having a broken tap that's gushing water onto the floor.

And the best solution people are willing to come up with is putting a million tiny containers in place to catch all the water before we get flooded.

The problem with this method is immediately apparent: we're going to run out of space and also there's no way to be sure we're catching it in all the right places.

Simply fixing the tap so it doesn't spill water anymore is a much better solution.

>Seems to me that tech is going to be much better at solving this problem than the government.

Whatever "the solution" in the end may be, we can all play our part. Individual, company or government.

Personally, I feel it's both wrong and harmful to play up feelings of "government should leave things to tech". That was never at play, in terms of working out a solution.

>Maybe after all that time we can start looking to other means to help address the issue rather keeping trying to alter it with legislation

The issue isn't being altered. Are you perhaps trying to say you think it's bad that the governments regulate what companies can do on their territory?

It makes perfect sense to fine companies that come onto the territory you own and are responsible for, when those companies pollute said territory.

Fining indeed doesn't solve the problem directly. It does offer a chance for reflection and study on the side of the companies.

The problem isn't that the government is trying to protect its territory and its people. The problem is that companies continue harming the environment despite the knowledge that this eventually kills people, animal and plant life.

What you're saying sounds a lot like the rethoric of "Don't fine us because we're not going to listen anyway". Which is downright evil.

>Of course even if the entire USA went carbon nuetral tomorrow it wouldn't do much because the biggest contributer to CO2 emissions right now is China at almost 2x what the US producing.

Respectfully, that is complete and utter bullshit. The impact would be gigantic.

It's not because there's still more to fix, that this means one action won't fix anything. That's absurd.

Also, the idea of "going carbon neutral tomorrow" is a strawman. A total exaggeration meant to portray the plans of one side as impossible. While those are not actually the plans to begin with.

Your entire post feels like anti-government propaganda.

I must have some deep-rooted, maybe repressed, anger towards maths.

I can program just fine, write functions left and right, receive data, do something with it, return a result...

But in maths? Oh dear god no I couldn't write a math function on a piece of paper to save my life.

Someone recently pointed out the parallels and while I couldn't deny it, as it was plain as day... I never once considered it during all these years.

Kinda scary.

I doubt this person does not care about the subject they wrote about.

And if the algorithm is producing negative side effects, then, of course, it should be looked at and changed.

I'm no expert myself, but to my understanding: any algorithm is limited by its data set.

Based on its data set, an algorithm comes to conclusions. But one can then, of course, ask: what's the basis for these conclusions?

I recall reading that a certain AI had been fooled into thinking a picture of a banana was showing a toaster or a helicopter, after a few part of the image were changed to contain tiny bits of those items.

It turned out that the AI used the apparent texture on places in the image to determine what was on the image, rather than doing a shape comparison.

Which sounds like a time-saving measure. Though it may very well have been the method that most consistently produced correct results, for the given dataset.

Frankly, the attitude of "we don't know how it works and we don't care" cannot possibly end well.

Neither the attitude "oh well make a better dataset then".

I get that we're all excited about the amazing abilities we're seeing here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look where we're going.

I recall a story of an AI researcher who didn't want to define anything because he was afraid of introducing bias. Upon hearing this, his colleague covered up his eyes. When asked why he did this, he replied: "The world no longer exists". And the other understood.

Because of course the world still exists. And just the same way: it's impossible get rid of bias.

Some human intervention is needed. Just like constant checks and comparison against human results.