jholloway7

Now that you mention it, this might be why my family stopped playing Rack-O with me

Could they calculate and show an estimate of the monthly charges based on current objects in the bucket before and after the change in storage class? OP may still have clicked through w/o heeding, but I can see that as a potential improvement to the warning message where a user would then be forced to understand why it didn't affect pricing in the way they assumed it would.

Noted, thanks. Didn't realize that was the issue.

If your aunt had nuts she'd be your uncle

Downvotes on comp sci 102. Nice.

You can write a list data structure with performant 'delete' properties if you're willing to maintain a sort or a hash table. There would be people here bitching about memory usage if the stdlib did that natively. Here's a solution: don't use list.delete. You're using the wrong data structure if that's your solution to whatever collection you're maintaining.

This problem transcends documentation of any given language's standard library. list.delete(value) in any programming language is a degenerate without an ordering or hash built-in to the underlying data structure.

If you ever need to delete based on value, it's a smell that a list is the wrong data structure. I'm sure there are cases in constrained environments where a linear search is heuristically okay, but generally in application development list.delete(value) is a hint that you're using the wrong data structure.

Yep, it makes it easier to port the JRE to platforms like Windows that have an entirely different TZ system. Python, for example, has the same problem. Historically, Python took the stance of providing a "naive" datetime module that provides a conversion API, but delegated the actual TZ conversion to external implementations (dateutil, pytz). Only recently (as of 3.9) have they added a stdlib implementation that uses system-level zoneinfo by default.

Not sure if lower-level API of RQ supports this, but I tend to prefer message-oriented jobs that don't couple the web app to the task handler like the example.

I don't want to import "count_words_at_url" just to make it a "job" because that couples my web app runtime to whatever the job module needs to import even though the web app runtime doesn't care how the job is handled.

I want to send a message "count-words" with the URL in the body of the message and let a worker pick that up off the queue and handle it however it decides without the web app needing any knowledge of the implementation. The web app and worker app can have completely different runtime environments that evolve/scale independently.

I don't think they're proposing this for anything other than a prototyping solution along the lines of this:

http://xip.io/

There are cases where you simply want to use a name during development because it generalizes better for the eventual production case, but you don't care what the name is, you don't care if anyone can memorize it, you just need it to be a name and not an IP address.

> a ton of consumers

So like 12 average adults? /s

I'm not sure how you read from my comment that I'm saying 'this shit is impossible'. I'm simply saying in many organizations 'how fast the intern got it up and running' is not always a valid indicator of how ready it is to be deployed to a few thousand concurrent users.

For example, large MMO guilds have a quite different regulatory environment from, say, a large healthcare organization in the US governed by HIPAA. It's an extreme example, sure, but a homegrown, dumbed down solution, might be the only way to ensure regulatory compliance.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with other scenarios. I can't defend Uber doing it because I'm not involved, but large MMO guilds are not archetypal of enterprise systems.

My comment isn't concerned with using 'personal' time for such endeavors. My concern is with the implicit conclusion that how fast you can get something up and running (a 'weekend' in this case) is an argument that you can and should deploy a new stack in any given enterprise.

You'll find a lot of times the champion of the new hotness moves on and leaves someone else to maintain the old hotness at costs that were never factored into the original deployment.

As I noted in another comment, it's a trilemma where you have to pick and choose your battles. The initial deployment time is rarely the most important factor when introducing a new stack within an organization.

I'm not necessarily in the 'build one from scratch' camp either, I'm just pointing out that there's a trilemma in enterprise systems. How fast you're able to get something up and running is just one factor and not always the most important one.

You're making a good underlying point but contriving way too many details in your argument for it to be taken seriously.

Let's not pretend that hosting an OSS chat server is a walk in the park for every enterprise just because you personally got one up and running in a weekend.

Hey you're still at an order of magnitude fewer layoffs than Sprint ION after they blew off a $2B loss in the early 00s. Maybe get your leadership to look at that case study.

There is no difference. I think people just get hung up on the word 'dimension' in the sense of degrees of freedom in a spatial state vector (to reuse your terms). Perhaps these are people who learned linear algebra only in the context of spatial dimensions / geometry and have never had to apply the concepts to any other problem domain.

I'm sure there are valid reasons, but I also think there's a law that no matter how comprehensive your application protocol, it will eventually get turned into a transport for a higher-level (sometimes shoddier) application protocol.

Can this recreate trying to figure out a way to host a web server in 1991?

I'm sorry for the vitriol, but this is one of the most ignorant comments I've read on HN for a while. I read it three times and could only conclude your whole comment was just so you could spew the "couched in a faux constructionist" non sequitur at the end of it.

STEM in physical education: Biomechanics, kinesiology, nutrition science, sports psychology, probability and statistics, equipment tech.

STEM in art: physics, perspective, geometry, chemistry, music theory, acoustics, audio engineering, CAD, photoshop, Leonardo Da Vinci would like to have a word with you.

STEM in history: agriculture, Gutenberg, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Alan Turing WWII, industrial revolution, manhattan project, Apollo, telecommunications

Basically the entire tree of "advances in STEM" over the course of human civilization can be directly tied to salient events in art, sports and general history.

STEM advances humanities and humanities advance STEM. If anything the STEM movement is about trying to get STEM back on par with how other fields are taught. It's not a zero sum where if STEM wins, then 'humanities' lose. They complement each other and both win.

Are you referring to the Alan Parsons Project?

The tone of his comment seems to me he's just frustrated a community of programmers took the conversation down the path of debating the merits of recommendation systems rather than exploring the more general applicability of the algorithm in other problem spaces.

Maybe one should be able to put a subreddit in 'unmoderated' view and see what's getting moderated out so the community has a little more transparency. Yeah, you'll have to wade through some sewage, but at least you can opt-in on occasion to make sure you're not being unwittingly moderated into an echo chamber.

I think this hits on the underlying problem I see with Reddit and similar forums, though. Look at the evolution of subs like /r/LateStageCapitalism or /r/FatPeopleHate or /r/Incels or T_D or TRP or Flat Earth or Broneyism or whatever. I don't think in all cases the communities started out as extreme as they eventually became.

I'm not defending their original charters by any means, I just think there's some kind of sociological reality or formula these subs are tapping into that allows them to purposefully moderate/evolve into echo chambers and bring a community of followers along with them, to a point where the community even starts to self-moderate to the extreme -- but they don't just start out that way.

It's almost like you can take some ridiculous idea or some interesting but archaic belief system, build some interest in it using humor or shock value, then once you have an audience with critical mass slowly turn it into a cult without anyone noticing, like the boiling frog analogy (hmm, the irony of that comparison just now struck me). I almost want to try this myself with something absurd just to prove the theory.

And I'm sure this isn't a new concept in sociology or anthropology and there are people researching how it works at Internet scale. Can anyone point me to what it's called?

> Poof of Stake

Is that what happens when you accidentally lock yourself out of your crypto wallet forever?

Think about the difference between a specialized AI that can beat a grandmaster at chess (using heuristics) versus a generalized AI that can learn how to play chess and then figure out how to beat a grandmaster on its own.

Totally agree!

For specific beginner programs, GSLP and StrongLifts have always seemed like the two with the lowest barriers to entry of the ones I know about.

I would add weighted chin-ups to any beginner routine that doesn't have them, because I personally like to balance not only the push/pull muscles, but also in the horizontal and vertical planes.

You didn't ask, but my current routine consists of these core/compound lifts:

Workout A) * Bench Press (horizontal push) * Barbell Row (horizontal pull) * Squat (leg-driven push)

Workout B) * Overhead Press (vertical push) * Weighted Chin-Ups (vertical pull) * Deadlift (leg-driven pull)

Any lifts besides these are considered accessory and are only programmed in based on specific needs, e.g. weaknesses/imbalances/posture issues/aesthetic goals. If I can't tie an accessory back to a specific need, then it's just considered fuckarounditis and I eliminate it.

I rotate my rep scheme so I'm not always doing high weight / low rep, but sometimes low weight / high reps or medium weight / medium reps. I do this mostly to not get bored, but also because always doing high weight / low rep can get stressful. I'm probably sacrificing strength gains by slowing my progression down, but I'm okay with it.

Disclaimer: everyone's goals are different. I'm pushing 40 and my goals are to maintain a modest level of strength and overall fit appearance (only working out 3 days a week for < 90 minutes per session) and this is what works for me.

If one's goal is to be a powerlifter, fitness model, bodybuilder, etc. you most likely have to work harder and take your programming even further than I've taken mine.

Lifting weights can help, but it can also cause more harm when your routine isn't properly balanced. Doing only bench press and military press lifts for upper body is going to be a chest/tricep push heavy routine.

If you're not balancing these pushes with pulls (chinups, pullups, rows, etc), it can promote issues like rolled shoulders, forward neck, weak traps, weak rhomboids or similar postural issues to those the author is trying to avoid in the first place. In fact, many lifters will add more pulls than pushes, because our day-to-day activities tend to be more push-oriented.

The point is, if you're going to lift, pick a beginner's routine designed by someone who knows what they're doing that has push/pull balance programmed in from the outset. Don't just pick a couple lifts that you enjoy and throw out the rest.

Unlike many other fatal crashes, however, they presumably now have data from the corner case they can use to regression test every future release of the system.