ascendantlogic

Nomad gets the job done. What you end up missing is the huge ecosystem of tooling and knowledge that comes "for free" with Kubernetes.

How did you expect a decentralized, consensus-driven network to operate without some level of consensus? You think 1 node forks should be as viable as 10,000 node forks?

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so.

> The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it?

You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of one that goes entirely unused. This is exactly how decentralization is supposed to work. You have to obtain some level of consensus to get anything done. This isn't a situation where "everyone" has too coordinate to oppose something, just "enough" people to form a fork that has enough hashpower/security to attract users. Even if a large enough minority of miners were able to coordinate a new chain, fork the code, make the necessary code changes and start their own version of Ethereum they still have to get people to use their network.

> and I understand that they cannot achieve this

Gonna need some citations here for this one.

To establish "good enough" distributed consensus without burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy doing throwaway math problems?

Until giant hacks result in actual pain being experienced by the leaders of these companies in the form of jail time and/or fines that aren't rounding errors on the balance sheet, no one will care.

> None of that mattered though.

After doing this professionally for 20 years I've found that clients don't care what language, framework, hosting provider, etc you use to solve their problems. They don't care about your code quality, they don't care about your CI pipeline or any of that shit. They care if you have solved their problem for them, and that's it.

It's definitely got competition for the title of "most important" but think about how ubiquitous, increasingly closed off and intrusive modern smart phones are. I think there's some merit to the statement.

That was my experience with Kubernetes when I set it up for a QA cluster a few years back. That learning curve is more like a sheer cliff face but once you get to the top the view is really nice. But getting there is a hell of a hike. It's easier now since every major cloud has a managed offering but my journey was pre-EKS so it was doubly as intense for me.

if all the current ones haven't been good enough then I think its implied that a new one would be created.

> Wish we’d all agree to one templated configuration format.

I'm going to post the obligatory XKCD comic because your comment is exactly what this was created for: https://xkcd.com/927/

IBM is irrelevant today but they saw a resurgence in the 90's after Gertsner took over.

The point is Intel still holds a huge amount of market share and has an enormous amount of cash. The new CEO seems to be universally praised in these comments and look at what Lisa Su was able to do at AMD.

I'm old enough to remember writing IBM off in the early 90's and Microsoft off in the late 2000's. These companies had one thing in common: giant war chests of cash and legacy businesses that were still pumping out money by the truckload. It's not like a startup/small business that's riding on a razor's edge, these companies have so many resources they can keep searching for a way "out" of their predicament for a very long time until they finally land on the right combination of people, vision and timing.

We see it now with Google now being the "evil empire". They haven't had a real hit since Android and seem to be floundering, but online ad revenue is such a huge geyser of cash they're gonna be fine for a very, VERY long time.

I don't seem to recall any of those things translating into a violent mob storming the capitol. Therein lies the difference, when the words finally incite action.

Where is the line? Do we defend free speech as violent mobs incited on false pretense attempt to overthrow the government to install their wannabe dictator back into power? If that happens do you think freedom of speech will survive? If Trump were to succeed with his coup and be put back into power do you really think the constitution survives in its current incarnation at all?

Freedom of speech is one thing but when it finally translates into violent action it's a different animal.

> Unless something has dramatically changed in recent years (I doubt it)

I can point out one thing that changed in the last 4 years, and it is our President and the atmosphere of vitriol and gaslighting he has created.

Most of these companies were fine to tolerate this on their services when it was just speech, but now that speech has translated into actual violent action it's a different ballgame.

Anyone who has ever taken a look around on AR15.com will know that more than a few threats against political figures were made on there on a pretty regular basis. I own an AR so I can say that I actually lurked there this past fall. Given what we saw on Wednesday I'm not surprised a lot of tech companies are now seeking to wash their hands of anything that can be tied back to them. Although I'm not sure how GoDaddy thought this was gonna work out for them. Maybe they figured it would repair their image across the "rest" of tech and get them more business? They're traditionally pretty scammy so I'm not really sure if/when they grew a "conscience".

What are the limits of free speech? Are we going to defend it even as the tools of it are used to orchestrate violent uprising based on false pretense and potentially destroy that very constitution that guarantees it? Are we going to abdicate it in the name of stability? There are no easy answers here. Whatever the outcome, social media no longer survives as impartial arbiters of content without moderation in the name of profits.

Both languages have their strengths and weaknesses. I have a Ruby background and have been learning Python more recently. After years of "artisinal" Ruby with heaps of unnecessary metaprogramming magic Python seems nicer to me, but I'm senior enough to be aware of my perceptions not necessarily being reality.

The bottom line is that (A) the more languages you are proficient in the better and (B) as long as whatever problem you need to be solved is solved then the language doesn't really matter.

Some people think if they ignore science hard enough, it'll just make the problems go away.

There is the concept of the Castle Doctrine, where you are allowed to use deadly force (within reason) to defend yourself and your family when someone attempts to assault you within your own home. Not all states have it but regardless, it is null and void when it comes to the police.

EDIT: I'm not sure why this is being downvoted? We're discussing gun ownership in America, when it is legally allowable to use said firearms and the fact that none of that matters when it comes to Police entering your home, all in the context of police acting like the Gestapo at this woman's home.

Because it's not about consistency, it's about winning. And McConnell sure is doing a lot of that in terms of his agenda to stuff courts full of conservative justices.

Going by your tone I'm going to assume you almost never project rays of sunshine from any orifices and maybe it's not their culture of happiness that's the problem.

Any engineer that takes issue with that statement has never spent a day dealing with rude, angry customers and has no accurate frame of reference to draw up a response.

AMD is small though. I have no data to back up my gut but anecdotally I feel like they don't have the manufacturing capacity to keep up with Apple's demands right now.

Especially now with the US economy in the toilet and unemployment numbers at astronomical levels. No mass exodus is going to happen unless people can easily move into another job.

You did the super double meta joke and everyone missed it.

Makes you wonder how these companies ever planned to last during the "next" economic downturn. I don't think anyone bet on a global pandemic causing this shock but the point still stands: These kind of companies were still burning cash at incredible rates 10+ years in. How were they ever going to survive?

this is a disingenuous post. The crux of the SEC effort against them is because they created this chain and token during the 2017 gold rush (actually in 2018 but obviously the 2017 bull run is what sparked the interest) and very clearly were trying to cash in. When you create what by all accounts is a security specifically for investment and asset appreciation but don't register it as a security with the SEC, they get a little unhappy. Reading back through some of the articles before this when the SEC intervened Telegram had raised 1.7 billion dollars off this. When you make a few billion off an unregistered security offering, people are going to sit up and take notice.

Regardless of your feelings on the SEC, crypto, et al, it's pretty obvious why the SEC intervened and to see this eventual outcome.

The number of times you say "I" and "me" in this sentence tells me all I need to know about you and your priorities. Maybe think about your mother more than once a month.