It is clear they were in terms of starting off. But it was on a closed set - an undergrad could have coded what they showed.
6,767 karma · joined January 2, 2016
the answer is always: do a lot of manual stuff that the language should do for you. I can, but I can't get a team to.
I have a plan to try it, DMT, LSD, 2-CB and 5-MeO-DMT before I'm 60, so I guess I'd better get cracking as that isn't far away for me.
Mescaline is _rough_. And honestly the "you are done with it before it is done with you" thing is 100% true, it is also very long lasting.
My few experiences, the first few times, over the course of a year, spread apart by 3-4 months, went from extremely dark to .. just positive, except the last one, where I had no visuals, no bliss at all, and just came to terms with something else in our lives that was going wrong.
The dark ones were rage and anger, and now it seems just gone, like there's nothing there. Like a weight lifted, and seemingly long term.
1. is there a _very significant_ difference in the horizontal scaling footprint/model or demand (and demand is _only relevant_ if there is static footprint)? Home the function with a similar service, if there is one, otherwise yes, add a service.
2. is there a _genuine_ and _legitimate_ need for a different database, with completely independent schema, and not some horrible bullshit where you will end up doing cross-party transactions (and almost always failing to do so well)? Are you sure you need a different database or is your team just afraid of SQL and schema management (the usual mongodb garbage)? Is the issue that you don't understand how database security works? .. if all of these pass muster, then yes, ok, that's an OK reason.
Every architecture I've seen since 2013 at startups and big companies alike (since I do technical diligence professionally as a side gig) has been microservices or simple CRUD.
Almost all of the microservices ones were totally fucking wrong and had to be massively reworked, and usually multuple times, because they had no thesis at all for what they were doing and it was often - even mostly - an excuse not to have to learn their tools beyond tutorial level and/or a desire to play with new shiny or not read someone else's code. The CRUD guys were fine, they just did business until they needed to add caching, and so on, like real products.
When I talk to people who did microservices, I ask them "why is this a service separate from this?"
I have legitimately - and commonly - gotten the answer that the dev I'm talking to wanted their own service.
It's malpractice.
what it really amounts to is a three phase transaction.
The problem with lock _hierarchies_ as a concept is that a lock really should represent serialization of access to a particular pool of data, and should make no assumptions that it being held implies some other lock's domain is also held. The code that results when people do not maintain this kind of rigor is quite terrible, but hierarchies tend to steer people into thinking that way because they imply recursively taking locks.
Stated differently: locks should be taken and released in a fixed order - so locks are ranked - but there should not be a model where all lower-ranked locks must be held for a given lock to be taken. The lock protects its domain and the ordering of take and release is to prevent deadlock, but there's no requirement for completeness.
"There is, however, one enormous difference that I didn’t think about: You can’t build a cloud vendor overnight. Azure doesn’t have to worry about a few executives leaving and building a worldwide network of data centers in 18 months."
This isn't true at all. There are like 8 of these companies stood up in the last three or four years fueled by massive investment of sovereign funds - mostly the saudi, dubai, northern europe, etc. oil-derived funds - all spending billions of dollars doing exactly that and getting something done.
The real problem is the ROI on AI spending is.. pretty much zero. The commonly asserted use cases are the following:
Chatbots Developer tools RAG/search
Not a one of these is going to generate $10 of additional revenue per sollar spent, nor likely even $2. Optimizing your customer services representatives from 8 conversations at once to an average of 12 or 16 is going to save you a whopping $2 per hour per CSR. It just isn't huge money. And RAG has many, many issues with document permissions that make the current approaches bad for enterprises - where the money is - who as a group haven't spent much of anything to even make basic search work.
The poster needs to seek actual help.
Alcohol is one of the most boring psychoactive experiences there is, it's the safest, the most predictable and the most repeatable. There's nothing challenging about it - happy drunks are going to be happy drunks, angry/emotional drunks are going to be angry/emotional drunks, people who use the context of alcohol to excuse behaviors that they feel they would otherwise be judged for (promiscuity, "I love you guys! no I really do!", etc. etc.) are doing just that. The only drug with more predictability than alcohol is caffeine, with the common opiates being next in line for being absolutely predictable - do X get Y.
Alcohol is boring. Even pot or tobacco are more interesting, but they lack the social context that provides behavioral permissibility which is really what drives the ritual-lite use - going drinking on the weekend.
This is honestly not true unless you are including absinthe. Ethanol is the only active ingredient and it has one of the most well understood dose-response curves and one of the most heavily studied effects. The rest is all in your head.
There just isn't that much to the alcohol, it's very one note, moreso than any psychedelic, moreso than even smoking (where dose control significantly varies the effects) or even cannabis which is also relatively one note.
That said, Intel really has nothing to fall back on. Internally, it is very much like many of the other big companies - run by executive whim papered over with justifications that are tissue thin. There are a lot of companies like this - Cisco, Intel, whatever the hell is left of IBM, Nokia, Lattice, NetApp, etc. - that will probably die this decade if they fail to reboot their executive and managerial cultures.
I have a lot of friends who have been in the great parts of Intel (the CPU design teams and, believe it or not, fabrication) and the crap parts (everything else, especially networking and storage [what's left of it], except maybe the perenially suffering ICC team). Pat has failed to make things materially better because the system that is the body of Intel is resilient to disruptions of the sort he is trying. A massive replacement and flattening of culture is required there and he has not been able to execute on it.
Turnover is coming for all the companies I list above. If I had to go out on a limb and suggest a longterm survivor from the list above, it might be Lattice. Otherwise everyone listed is driving hard straight to the ground internally, whether the market sees it or not.
"you should be/keep slaves because our ancestors were/did"
etc.
Your logic is weird and false. There's nothing holy about dying.
(There's an irony for me in that I had, until I got older, perfect experiential recall of short clips of time, including the feeling of motion, sound, etc. That faded to nothing in my forties. Enjoy being young, the worst part of aging is the very things that are you start to become threadbare.)
We’ve squandered almost all of the advancements.