strofcon

That's a great point and clarification, thanks!

Words should have meaningful usages though, yes?

I mean, we let "literally" become a contranym, and broke an awful lot of conversations and literatary comprehension, yea?

Are we really trying to claim that sales people should have the same level of knowledge as power-users / developers / engineers who build such things?

Perhaps I'm too young, but I've literally never know any such a salesperson. They're there to be charismatic and friendly, and show the features for which they've been handed a script.

Their job is to drive interest, and address very, VERY high level concerns. They're not experts, else they'd (by and large) be doing something other than sales, yes?

(To be fair, it's possible that we've just eliminated reasonable expectations of salespeople, but that's not clear to me yet)

I've never understood "don't judge the past by today's standards."

If today's standards indicate that someone's past behavior was dick-ish, then the fact that the standards have shifted does NOT imply that the past behavior was somehow "just fine" because... We didn't expect better of each other?

By that logic, abusive racist parentage back in the 50's is unassailable acceptable, because as you say - we're judging it by today's standards.

Acceptability in the past is no indication of an actions morality or ethical... ness.

... Words are hard.

I mean, you can have a strong distaste for scalpers, but it doesn't make this any more reasonable a thing to do.

Granted, buyers have every right to say "nah, I'm out", which IMO they absolutely should do.

I don't particularly like scalpers either, but I have a much stronger distaste for the idea that a physical product I purchase under pretense of ownership is then treated as a leased / subscribed / otherwise non-owned possession.

It's a slight difference, sure, but not a meaningful one. If you buy the product, and are subsequently disallowed by the original seller to do what you please with it, then you don't own it and are merely leasing it - at least for the first year.

But... they didn't change their name on the form. They literally just said "I'm still me, but I want this other file now, please."

All company data was, in OPs scenario, made public to any and all authenticated users.

There is no way to rationally spin this as a malicious act, in my view.

Except that's not at all what they did - they simply accessed files that had been made public by the service provider.

To be able to login as BoBibbidyFooBar, and subsequently access ANY company's info in the system without changing their identity from BoBibbidyFooBar does not, in any way, constitute any sort of fraud. It literally cannot, by any sensible definition.

I mean, we can split hairs over the words to use, but ultimately "immoral and unethical things are being done by big companies that hold all your stuff". The sentiment is the same.

What I'm getting at is that the things Google and Microsoft are doing are entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Apple is going to compromise your device's privacy in the name of child safety, and will - invariably - eventually cave to pressure to extend that capability well beyond it's originally well-meaning use case.

Stop bringing up what other companies are doing - it is, as I said, entirely irrelevant.

I agree we should do so! That said, we should discourage behavior that is absolutely guaranteed to be abusive in the future.

We can call it speculation - that doesn't mean it's wrong. Power is the play, and companies will always be leveraged for the benefit of the powerful. This seems pretty indisputable to me.

And Google's entire Code of Conduct used to be "Don't Be Evil". Things change. Money drives all decisions, at all levels above the visceral.

Unfortunately, historical precedent for any given business entity provides absolute zero evidence of probable future behavior. :-\

Your whatboutism is profoundly unhelpful here.

Yes, other companies are doing bad things, and they should be stopped.

Doesn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that Apple should be allowed to do something even worse.

Naysaying != skepticism.

I agree for the "hard" needs that are, quite literally, as universal as can be imagined. Sex, however, is not one of those. The very existence of asexual individuals who live out a long and happy life is a testament to this.

There are no a-shelter, a-money, etc., individuals who simply do not need those things. There are people without those things, yes - and I agree that their existence is objectively worse off for it.

Sex, on the other hand, can be entirely absent from a person's life and not necessarily impact it.

So I don't think I accept your assertion that sex is objectively a necessity for a high standard of life. It currently behaves as one, because we generally accept that it's desired so deeply by so many that it qualifies as a need - and for the most part, that might well be true. But there is still the case to be made that "having sex or not" is only as much of an impact on one's standard of living as one's worldview dictates. This is not true of other "hard" needs, as pointed out before. Ie: My philosophy on sex can yield an asexual, long, healthy, and happy life, but my philosophy on shelter cannot lead to a homeless long, health, and happy life. (Happy is debatable, sure.)

"You can’t just shame tens of thousands of men into accepting a substandard life."

I would challenge the "substandard life" assertion, as it's a framing issue.

The biological need for sex is indeed great, I won't argue that point - but I don't believe that lacking sex necessarily makes a life substandard.

In all fairness, it is extremely difficult to re-frame something so primal, but I think a stronger focus on acceptance of the world and healthier views of one's capacity to influence it would be a prime candidate for reducing the harm of the incel mindset.

Getting there in any practical manner, of course, is... probably not gonna happen.

This seems an odd migration, as they're largely unrelated, yes?

Seems they're playing fast and loose with the word "credibility".

Very much this.

Not to mention, "sorry, <XYZ> Health Insurance won't cover you because you show a slight genetic predisposition toward fingernail cancer. Good luck."

>> In the case of Wayland, the “vague authority” are a bunch of volunteers who have devoted tens of thousands of hours of their free time towards making free shit for you.

>That does not mean anyone is under an obligation to like it.

Doesn't seem that was the point of that statement. Rather, it's asserting that it's invalid to claim that the very people who built the thing in the first place are a "vague authority".

How true the accusation it, I dunno, but that's my read of the sentence - not that the volunteer devs are somehow entitled to endearment by virtue of their volunteering. :-)

Heh, that's how I took it too, glad I wasn't alone. :-)

Except that actual pandemics are demonstrable, predictable, and based in known science, yes?

By the abstract, it seems that the very same superintelligence we'd want to contain would itself be "something theoretically (and practically) infeasible."

No?

I think they're using the "3P" version of "pivot", as in "Pause, Pivot, or Persevere".

Pivot definitely seems to soft a word to describe what is, generally, exactly what you said - a full startover. At least, in the context of a startup.

But then I dunno what other "P" word would work, and heaven forbid we break the catch alliteration... :-)

This is a weird one for me...

It's odd that we're proxying competency by way of intent.

Would it make more sense to consider the actual actions of individuals?

If I work on a problem with the intention to solve it, I've done both, and thus (by this essay) am competent for my intent to solve the problem, but also incompetent for my intent to _work_ on solving the problem.

I don't know that I entirely disagree with the author's core points, but I don't think this was a very effective piece. Mostly because I have to take a wild guess at what those core points might be, and then try to tease them out myself.

It seems worth noting that there's still been no mention of the ethics of building the pyramids, nor the rationality of doing so, nor the implications for the future, etc.

I think that's more the point of the blog post.

Terribly true,and a great argument as to our need for philosophers in all eras. :-)

Fair points. I think it's worth noting though that while bottom-up invention creates the horse-drawn plow, philosophy is what attempts to answer the question of its rationality, morality, etc.

I don't think the two have to be so divorced as you suggest. :-)

"To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be correct. Your ideas have to be both correct and novel. You can't publish papers saying things other people already know. You need to say things no one else has realized yet."

Oof, first paragraph and he's entirely wrong. That's rough.

One of the most worrisome aspects of the world's take on science lately is that reproduction of published results is considered the work of dullards and thus unworthy of funding.

By definition, reproduction of results is not novel, and yet it is (or at least really should be) one of the single most crucial aspects of a shared scientific method.

This is profoundly bad thinking by Paul.

I'm hopeful that with it effectively being a KV store pointed at a "simple" object store (S3, GCS, etc), it will be dramatically simpler to manage than Jaeger, and much more performant.

Backing Jaeger with Elasticsearch or Cassandra was a nightmare. :-|

Good question! Depends on the instrumentation libraries for sure, but in our Go services we've been using Jaeger protocol for our traces, and "sampling" at 100%, with negligible impact to request / response times.

We spit out some 30k+ spans per second, FWIW. :-)

Edit: Disclaimer, we're not using Tempo.