Knowledge is power and no one entity powerful enought likes to have it flowing freely. It would become free at about the same time the monetary system becomes obsolete, in other words never. That doesn't mean that the opposition to the powerful should stop and that is what Sci-Hub is.
While I was working in my previous job for some clients in USA, I regularly had meetings starting from 6PM up to 10PM local time. I'm from Bulgaria. We have 7 hours difference with east coast. I had so much compensation hours/overtime that I was earning 20-25% more on top of my salary(outside of office hours are payed with multipliers) and had extra vacation days. Nowadays I'm not so inclined to make this much overtime, however I'm OK working with shifted office hours.
Most of Europe has relatively nice public transport. I used to read books while on my way to work. That was 1.5-2 hours per day for my library. My previous office was 30 minutes walking distance from my home. Great way to wake up as opposed to coffee. While I was in the US, they had scarcely any sidewalks. Only in big cities it seemed appropriate to walk to somewhere.
You don't factor the electricity/water for cooking & cleaning and the time spent doing it(calculate it by the hourly rate of a mid-range cook assuming you are there).
We are not microservices. People in a team have a lot in common, they do systematically the same type of work albeit in a different context and they can be a lot more useful to each other when they communicate seamlessly instead of at scheduled time slots.
I used to read books during commute. No time was wasted. In fact, now I seem to have a lot less time for reading, because there is always something more pressing at home.
It is surprising how antisocial is the new generation. The dynamic between colleagues is something that comes naturally when the team has great cohesion. Half the time I didn't have to finish the sentence of what you describe and they are on it. I can't remember how many great ideas have come up during the "hey let's get a cup of coffee" break. Now we look less like humans and more like avatars.
While a SAN/NAS is overall an expensive hardware in both price and manageability, there are entry level devices. You can even get direct SCSI devices in some cloud services(Azure has "shared disks"). For Oracle RAC the data is accessed from same location, it's not distributed/replicated across nodes. It's literally the same disks attached to all nodes. Also ASM works with raw block devices which bypasses the need for file system abstraction and all the latency that comes with it. You could also deploy a cluster on a cluster/network file system, but this would generally not be a good idea since you get a lot of overhead.
Postgre clusters can be configured in similar fashion.
I'm not saying that Mongo doesn't have it's strengths. However using the full potential of your environment requires much more planing and has a lot more pitfalls.
I was particularly discussing the implications on what the relative immutability of the shard key has on the data distribution and that it is not that easy to change.
I was talking about a two "node" Mongo setup which would mirror the capabilities of a classic two node setup of Oracle RAC for example. Since in Mongo this is not a clear 1:1 match due to a different model of operation, in order to get the same performance/continuity as RAC here is what I mean.
If I want to gain a relative 100% increase in concurrent read/write access and transparent session failover to my application I have to procure two servers(with roughly the same performance lets put it at rawPerf=1.0 for simplicity) and a SAN/NAS with SCSI HBA and that would be it. All the necessary components will be running on those two servers and the application will have access to almost all capabilities of a single instance with a roughly twice the performance and fault tolerance. To do that in Mongo, I would have to procure 2 replica sets with 3 instances each(bare minimum to get the fault tolerance and not use arbiters which according to Mongo University is a bad idea) for the actual data and another RS for the configuration meta-data, which is another 3 instances. I will also need instances where I can run my "mongos" to route/consolidate my requests and to have fault tolerance I will need at least two of those. Now to do a break down of the different instances. From the two replica sets for data, I can use only 2 of the instances for writes and the remaining four only for consistent reads and that is only with the appropriate write concern. And while I have two instances for writes I am not guaranteed to get a consistent increase in write operations unless the data is at least somewhat evenly distributed. I will need six rawPerf 0.5 servers(assuming 0.5 rawPerf is capable to handle roughly half the data), that is a total of 3.0 so far. The configuration RS while not as demanding as the actual data RS will still require resources so I count it as roughly between 0.5-1.0 total for all three instances. And finally I have the "mongos" instances which although will not need disk space will need some CPU and the same amount of RAM as a regular instance in case the queries and not optimized, so I will have to give it 0.5 per instance. And the total amount of resources comes to 3.0+0.5+1.0=4.5. On the other hand with the Oracle RAC I would've needed 2.0.
As for the schema flexibility, from the Mongo documentation I take it that once the shard key is created it can't be changed arbitrarily. It can only be further fine-grained by adding more keys to it, however this is available from version 4.4. In order to change it cardinally, I would have to recreate the collection.
I'm sure you are well aware of all this, however I'm just stating my experience with MongoDB so far.
MongoDB IMHO also has resource allocation issues, because for a simple two "node" distribution setup you have ~4 times the demand for resources than a "regular" clustered service like Postgre or Oracle. Added to that the actual promised efficiency relies heavy on the data model and has no real easy way to correct once deployed.
Not all criminal investigations are solved or competently followed. However this doesn't mean you should take justice in your own hands, which is what mob justice is. This is plain disrespect for official authority and the principal of "innocent until proven otherwise". Even murderers with clear and shut cases are afforded legal council and ways to defend themselves.
Also, this could have been resolved if this was reported in timely manner, not years after. She is a victim, however her followup actions are neither correct nor proper.
The cool thing is you can make it part of the interior. I have 3 panels hanging from the ceiling, 1 painting and one mirror. They can be integrated into hanging or floating ceilings and usually have standard dimensions. You have to be aware, that most panels do not have thermostat. They have only one operating mode - On. In order to regulate them, you have to put a thermostat on the electrical line before it(essentially a smart switch). There are thermostats for wall integration. I use those, the cables are hidden in the wall and the actual thermostat is mobile so it can measure temperature at any location in the room. There are also thermostats which are plugged directly on electrical sockets for more integration out of the box. The price is comparable to any other heating solution and the consumption is a little less than air conditioner. Mine came with 5 year warranty. I just hope that they last longer, but with the exception of the painting, all the rest are easily replaceable.
Just as you ask for the right to be political on work premises and channels, they ask for the right to be apolitical on those same places. There are people on both sides of the fence. Which right is more important and how do we choose which one to disregard. There will always be disagreement between people and it should be practically impossible to create a society of perfect harmony. In order for both sides to at least tolerate each other's existence you need to create autonomous zones for each one. A company which doesn't want political involvement other than what is directly related to its business is exactly that. If you want to be politically active during working hours, then you don't fit into this company and there is no one stopping you from working for another one which is politically active or starting one yourself. People work better with people with the same core values. Only when both choices remain you actually have freedom and some semblance of tolerance. Remove either option and all you get is strife. Obviously some zones are "banned", like "I would like to kill people" and "I would like to rape people", because we all(or at least most ) agree this is not OK. However, I really hope all(or at least most) people have not gotten to the point where being apolitical is actually not OK and so is its zone.
Yes, you are correct. I've misremembered the
effects. However there are other positive effects from infrared light.In any case, this is just a bonus to the actual purpose of the panels.
I just bought my apartment last year and I made the decision to use infrared panels for heating. Best decision ever. No moving parts(no noise and no constant breeze), no dry air indoors, the heat is actually stored in the walls and furniture(denser objects), so I can vent the air regularly without loosing much energy. And it's supposed to help generate vitamin D which during the winter is usually a problem. The downside is that it takes longer than air conditioning to warm up the same room and it requires great wall and floor insulation(which I have). There is also the problem of overshooting the temperature(because the panels don't cool immediately, it takes about 15-20 min), which is solved in some thermostats using hysteresis algorithms for the temperature delta(it uses shorter cycles between on and off and more precise measurements, however this could wear the electrical panels quicker). I'm not that sensitive to the temperature so I don't use those and I have my temperature sensitivity up to 0.5C.
In my alma mater for most courses we had to actually discuss what we wrote(and maybe some other topics) with the lector as part of the exam. Some were open book, some were closed. Regardless of that however when you get to talk to the professor it's very hard to fake knowledge and especially logical thinking. It sure takes more time(we usually had one on one for about 20-30 minutes per student), but you can size a person way better than just reviewing what he wrote/selected. And there is no obstacle(other than time constraints, which can be worked around) to continue doing this even during the pandemic. I think we are overestimating technology such as AI and its applications. Some things are just plain better when done by a person. I had a very positive experience with one professor who chose to round up my grade instead of down, because my errors were technical(carelessness mostly) not logical, so he then asked me questions from subsequent chapters to see my reasoning. I really didn't care that much about the grade, but that discussion and the overall experience of failures that could lead to positive change through introspective analysis is something that you can't get from an AI or any pipeline processing.
If your statement is not a conclusion(albeit not a certain one), than what is it?
1) Do you have faith in the newfound public judgement system which by the way uses privately owned platforms for its media? Would you prefer it over the judicial system which has been developing over the past few centuries with all its flaws? Even with its flaws, the alternative for me is a hundred times worse.
3) Some women decided to pursue public figures and since they knew the damage that could be done to their target's image it was settled before court. I don't keep a record of such news and they are usually quickly buried as part of the deal.
Your conclusion is as subjective as his is. There is no real objective criteria by which the "net negative" could be measured. Even history will not be objective, because it will be written by those in power. However I'm of the same mind as him, that this has been more negative than positive for three reasons:
1) This was a precedent for public shaming without evidence or due process
2) This generally changed the working dynamic between male and female to something extremely formal and sometimes borderline hostile
3) It was a bandwagon for actresses(and eventually other careers) to make money because of 1)
"there is always an opportunity cost in terms of money not spent on loved ones" seems to me that by that logic you don't "love" yourself and you put very little value to yourself and that you only serve your loved ones. Everything that I purchase and that brings me happiness in term usually makes the people around me that love me also happy. Either by improving my mood and so improving my social interaction with them or simply because they care about me. And most of the things that I can and will buy for myself are transiently valuable to them as well. I buy an Omega watch -> someday I will leave that watch to my kid hopefully with a good story and a loving memory. I get a gaming PC/console -> I get to spend time with my kid playing a game. I build a utility room into my garage -> I get to teach my kid how to build/fix something. I buy a telescope -> I can spend time showing them the stars/galaxies etc. I do not buy something like that when there are more pressing matters at hand. However if we are meeting our common goals the money that we earned are for us to spend in whatever way we want, including giving presents for each other(even in the form of money). The freedom to care for ourselves improves our care for each other.
You seem to have some simplistic view of how global economy works if you think all around the globe people should be payed the same for the same profession. Unless you work as freelancer in which case most of the time you have to pay your own taxes(which in most countries will amount to a big percent of your paycheck), you will get salaries according to the local market price standards regardless of what your peers in another country get. There are at least a few reasons for that one of which is that the market would not allow for huge disparities in salaries compared to other professions and to the same profession with local funding. You can try to negotiate good bonuses and/or equity but that is not mandatory and it is as much as you can get.
I guess this is a problem only in USA. In Europe, the education is inexpensive enough with government funding and some effort from the child(which eventually pays back). Holiday vacations are usually for the whole family or organized by the school so this is planned expense. And in my opinion most of the expensive "toys" are usually not good for the child, like giving a sever year old an iPad/iPhone. I prefer to go with toys that spark creativity which usually are less expensive. That is not to say I would not buy expensive toys, however I believe that they should be given as rewards for memorable achievements or and to teach them what investment is. However I do admit that during the first five years the expenses for a child are huge, because most things have very short utilization lifespan - strollers, clothes, furniture, toys etc.
Instead of shared money with personal allowances, which works in constricting manner, we have shared goals approach to which we contribute whenever and however we can, which works in contributing manner. And we try to keep our budget aligned with our forecast for the goal or we reevaluate the forecast in case of unforeseen circumstances like the COVID pandemic. Of course we don't hit all of our targets but with time we get better at evaluating. Also any unspent money from a missed goal start as base for another goal.
I can confirm it is OF. However versions 7 through 10(maybe 6 as well) all look like that so I can't say which one it is. I used to work in a company using OF for the UI and I can say that while it is horrific to look at, it had its strengths. However it was appropriate 20 years ago when monitors had standard aspect ratio and resolutions. Nowadays with scaling and all kinds of aspect ratio it just doesn't work. Also Java... Ironically for one client our software was interfacing with Flexcube.
However the OF technology is still supported by Oracle and while they themselves are trying to kill it, nobody is willing to migrate their core systems to something new.
In my view, the US citizens are too polarized in almost any category to work their issues with one another. Most have very limited capacity for compromise and it's not always limited by internal rationalization. You are either left or right, cop or a citizen, black or caucasian, etc. God forbid you say the word "social" if you are a republican or you'll be labelled as a traitor to your party, that kind of polarization. There is no middle ground with where you stand. There was an interview on Ben Shapiro's channel on youtube where people on the street which identify as liberal where asked if they would consider compromising in order to get along with the right. They said, "Yes, we must be united." However when they were asked to choose on some policies to compromise, they disagreed to do so on every single one of them. Obviously this was targeted interview and I don't agree with half of the things that Shapiro is saying. However for citizens to live in peace with the rest there must be some kind of process of discussions and resolutions through compromise. And in your case those usually start with a discussion and end up with "f* you", "no f* you". My theory is that you have not had enough experience with negotiations and that is attributed to the limited foreign encounters that you had in your history. In Europe we had so many conflicts and wars that we had to negotiate all the time to keep the status quo which meant sometimes compromising with the opposition. The US way to handle things is usually to go straight to the active and aggressive approach. I've seen this in my business meetings and IT meetings with US clients. In itself this way of handling things is neither correct nor wrong, however it must be applied only when it is suitable to do so. And in my opinion this is usually all that you have in your deck of cards. I have some other theories as well on why your social approach is usually more aggressive.
As a person on both sides of this regulation I have to say I'm not conflicted at all were I stand. On a professional level this will have a huge impact on the firm that I've been employed for more than 5 years because of the legacy practices used in the software. This has been the proverbial "clusterfuck" at work. This might even have serious implications to the future of the firm as most of our customers reside in EU. Nevertheless on a personal level I'm so happy and relieved that finally something is being done to protect information. In fact I believe that the tighter the screw on the regulation the better. If some businesses have to stop entirely in order to reevaluate what has been done, why it shouldn't be done this way(I like the analogy about slavery I read in the comments here) and start from scratch if possible at all, then so be it. Even if it threatens my job security(and I just bought myself an apartment) I'd still be in favour of this. In fact I believe that in a few years if this sticks it would be much easier if not trivial to deal with GDPR regulations and then my only regret would be that this was not implemented sooner.