ztjio

If you like this kind of thing, the game "Control" is basically this, as a game, and it's amazing. Also probably still the best execution of raytracing in a real, modern game. I strongly recommend playing it. Whatever itch SCP scratches for you, this game will do it in 4 dimensions in realtime.

Also their original breadsticks were amazingly good.

You really should credit that which you quote.

(It's Alfred Lord Tennyson)

When the "platform" is a cobbled-together mangle of CloudFormation, Python Lambdas, and Terraform. They call the people who did that SREs.

And by "They" I mean the Sales and HR people who get assigned to run engineering orgs at 100-200mm private businesses all over the US. AKA "Enterprise."

The car won't even go into Drive without weight in the driver seat. These people had to put a lot of effort into making this happen.

The issue is closed, because, it's not a docker bug, it's a qemu bug. People should engage the qemu project about it.

It does, and it is also configurable in Energy Saver in System Preferences.

Neither of those functions are something Kubernetes does itself at all. For clusters to have that kind of functionality it's usually implemented with something like cluster-autoscaler. If it's not implemented with cluster autoscaler there's a chance you have a really annoying experience when nodes go away since the orchestrator doesn't know and takes a while to decide the node is gone and things should be cleaned up/rescheduled.

Now that info aside, they do support cluster autoscaler.

https://www.digitalocean.com/docs/kubernetes/how-to/autoscal...

Or maybe it's more appropriate to say that Cluster Autoscaler supports them? This tool (CA) does scaling in both directions and is highly configurable. At least, it is for other cloud vendors so I'd guess it's going to be so here too.

This is not financial advice. This is just a reflection of knowledge that has kept all my long term investments stable or growing through every dip and shift in the last 25 years.

- Stable index funds are the best long term hedge. (Date targeted mutual funds have largely been doing very well in the last 15+ years too.) - Then consider LONG TERM materials investments. - Then consider Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. - Then consider property, as in real estate.

Actually personally I'd drop the materials at this point. It's easier to screw up materials investments and they're often in stable funds anyway.

This is all long term, you'll note. I would argue there are no true short term hedges. There are bets against the market and that's often what you see in "hedge funds" that go relatively short term. But if you're in that space, well, you probably shouldn't even be having this discussion on Hacker News. I'm sure I'll take flack for that reinterpretation but it's important to be honest about these things, and many make money in this space by eschewing that honesty.

But, your basic goal of keeping your money valuable long term is not a hard problem, it's literally a solved problem and it's what the S&P 500 & similar indexes and/or TIPS exist for. If you think you need to hedge against the fall of the US or at least the USD? I think you should be hedging outside the financial system entirely, go full prepper, because, that's where that fatalistic logic will take you ultimately anyway.

Actually, with less snark, it is always reasonable to keep moderate term survival in mind. An actual major financial meltdown would likely be survivable with minor prepper-like approach to long term food and water stores, especially if you own property. So maybe move property up on your list if you are in a position to own it outright, and bury some water and long term preserves there as a bonus?

Insignificantly better.

Yes but not significantly better. And there were quite a few studies to choose from and still quite a few left after filtering for the best.

It's a fairly strong statement that despite a lot of studying, no evidence of any meaningful benefit for weight loss, and no benefit at all for CVD is found.

There could be other benefits, of course.

In fact, personally, I tried IF and what I found to be the greatest benefit was sleeping better. All I really have to do to maintain that same benefit is stop eating a couple hours earlier than I did before IF, and that's ... if we're being honest here ... that's long and well known good advice: don't eat near bedtime. For me it just didn't click that it meant don't eat several hours before bedtime as opposed to say, 30-40 minutes before bedtime.

Anyway, it's not surprising to me that little benefit is discovered so far from IF. It is an interesting idea, but, not much of a mechanic associated with it to explain any benefits. Most aspects of our metabolic processes do not work timeframes below a few days.

Actually, the parts that DO work on short time frames related most strongly to the health outcomes they stated could not be judged by the studies, including glucose impact. So I guess cross your fingers that in the future it can be shown that IF helps glucose management and reduces diabetes risk/impact.

Actually doing IF is more like, you have a 6 hour window a day in which you eat, and you eat nothing outside it. For most people that's much more restrictive than "skipping breakfast."

That said, not everyone agrees on the method. Some will skip entire days intermittently, so, this whole discussion is shaky overall, but, definitely agree that "skipping breakfast" is not IF.

This is a bizarrely biased view. There are no shortage of nightmare testimonials out there for Amazon customer service, unfairly banned accounts, and all of that.

Amazon might be slightly better than Google with regards to finding a person to speak with, but, not any better with finding a person who can do anything when you've been wronged.

That said, it seems that "Amazon" and "AWS" have entirely separately run customer service organizations. I have no reason to believe GCP customer relationships are managed in anyway resembling the way they manage their cattle on their free services where the user is the product anyway. Why would they?

Disk is often slower than the network now. You do need to keep an eye on this. However, using tools like gRPC instead of wasteful JSON REST calls makes a huge difference and brings other benefits too.

Typically speaking you're adding submillisecond latency per external call, or you've done something wrong.

Something wrong can include incorrectly organizing your system. Two separate services that constantly chat with one another should probably be considered as candidates to merge into one, for example.

Deployment matters a lot. I see people mocking systems like Kubernetes and tools like service meshes, probably because they don't understand this critical and hugely beneficial capability they bring which is to organize communication on the bases of (amongst other things) locality and system topology automatically.

In the end, most people seem to totally miss the real reason that "micro" services (the "micro" part should really be ignored today) are beneficial. Hint: it's not a technical problem being solved. It's a people problem. Service oriented architectures give very clear boundaries around which a development organization can structure in a way that allows parallel delivery.

The biggest problem any growing organization will face is: they don't pay attention is contention (yes like as in concurrency/locks/etc.) across the development team(s).

I have personally witnessed and worked with a 400+ person monolithic development organization. This was essentially a "unicorn" and an exception that proves the rule. The one and only reason this organization was successful was because they had top to bottom extreme coordination managed by a very small group that worked effectively together. Without that tight central orchestration it would've been a nightmare.

Most organizations can't orchestrate a 7 person team effectively, good luck getting 200 to share a monolith well. So you break up the org and the architecture follows, see: Conway's Law. It goes both ways, too. You break up the architecture and the org can follow.

With that in mind, it's extremely important to get your boundaries right and for the love of all that is sane in a daily job, don't break it up too much. So many organizations would triple or quadruple their productivity breaking a monolith into literally 2 parts. If you can do 3-5 that's cool, amazing! Just because you can see the dotted lines between 25 different potential services doesn't mean your organization will tolerate that.

Anyway that was a diatribe.

TL;DR: "micro" services solve PEOPLE problems, moreso than technical ones, and the price you pay is additional architectural and delivery challenges which you must balance well and plan for

Despite this attitude being memed, multiple efforts to refine fusion reactors to the point they are useful for energy purposes have made fairly constant (albeit slow and incremental) progress over the years. Furthermore, all the science and engineering concepts are sound based on the physics models.

One thing people don't get is we only need a tiny fraction of net positive output due to the insanely large amount of fuel available to us. 2-3% positive output is all we're talking about and it'll be able to economically replace most other energy sources (though it will take time to ramp up of course.)

Basically it's just a matter of time and continued advances in material sciences. Purity of materials and perfection of manufacturing are the primary barriers. Operational consistency a secondary one (and continued improvement in microcontroller tech and data analysis/AI/etc. will help here.)

One example, in focus fusion, the current progress has definitely been incremental but basically every step of the way the progress has been hindered by exactly the same problem: the materials and apparatus have to be nearly perfect to increase plasma duration sufficiently; to avoid contamination of the self-sustaining plasmoid. And indeed, the progress on that end has been continuous. Once it's proven it will be a matter of perfecting the manufacturing process and automations/etc. to ensure that degree of material quality and device engineering and voila we'll have cheap scalable power.

Based on what I've been watching for the last 15 years, I think within 40 years is quite reasonable. In fact, I think it would not be a surprised to see consistent 0.5% net positive or better in the next 5-10 years, whether it is focus fusion or tokamak or whatever.

TL;DR: Fusion is a 100% sound energy generation avenue that is simply waiting for its "welding" moment. By which I refer to the point where gas production became suddenly economically viable due to the invention of welding (which was motivated at least partly by the desire to improve gasoline production.)

I'm on 11.1 on a Mac Mini (latest Intel version) with 3 external displays. Two are connected via USB-C directly which means they are passively converting to DisplayPort. One is connected to HDMI from the Mac directly. All are 4k and all work fine.

That said, two of these displays were just purchased. They are kinda cheapo small "portable" displays (12.5" 4k native) which I primarily use for things like always visible terminal or slack/etc.

While experimenting with exactly how I wanted to connect these, I did for a time use Belkin's higher end USB-C to HDMI and had it misbehaving kind of randomly. After switching things around and connecting the one monitor with HDMI directly to the Mac I still had some issues... until I disabled FreeSync on the display itself and those issues disappeared.

The reality is that external displays have become extremely complex in the last few years with numerous optional functionalities such as HDR (which 100% always looks like garbage to me, I don't get the appeal) and VRR and so forth. Any issues I have experienced with external displays seem to have relationship with how complex the display's feature set is.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the issue was linked to some subset of features that 11.1 breaks on now. I might suggest toggling such features off if possible on your displays to see if it helps anything.

Self esteem isn't confidence. A lot of this seems to be borne out of the misunderstanding of what self esteem actually is. I remember this whole craze, I grew up in the thick of it. One thing the "preachers" utterly failed at is understanding and thus communicating what it even means to have self esteem.

Then one day I came across this most profoundly enlightening article about a commentary on self esteem by the one and only Bruce Lee https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/12/18/bruce-lee-artist-of...

What does it mean to hold someone else in high esteem? One could argue it means you respect their opinion or their actions, and then they can serve as a role model, a source of validation.

So therefore self esteem is the critical ability to derive validation in your actions from your self.

Self esteem is NOT just believing you can do something or be great or whatever. That's confidence. That's got nothing to do with self esteem at all.

What self esteem comes down to is deriving direction, right from wrong, validation, etc. from one's self. This is so important, because, if you derive validation through pride in reflection of others then you become a slave to those others.

This is what self esteem is about and why it's so critical. The craze lost the view. But the core message is still true today.

Lee also recognizes the challenge in cultivating self esteem, that it requires constant effort. It's not simply about "believing it so therefore it's true" like so many self esteem preachers would have had you believe during the craze. It's a challenge and it's an ongoing effort, like any other kind of hygiene.

It's common to suggest people think for themselves. This is impossible without cultivated self-esteem. I would argue that a huge number of people today suffer due to a lack of self esteem. The personality cults that we see destroying society today can arguably be enabled by looking to others for validation instead ourselves. It's a drug. It's far too easy to find outside validation now. Self esteem is enabling, yes, but it's also grounding. It's too easy to believe lies if you fail to ground your validation of action and thought in something more constant than the fleeting voices of strangers on the internet.

TL; DR: Self esteem is not about confidence in your abilities (or the idea you can do something because you believe you can), it's about recognizing yourself as a legitimate (perhaps the most legitimate) source of validation of your actions and choices instead of deriving validation only from others and thus self-esteem is how you avoid becoming a slave to the judgement of others. It requires constant maintenance.

The "craze" definitely failed to understand and communicate this.

Not sure, but, my educated guess is that it will be more efficient as they improve Rosetta 2 to do this on demand instead of pre-translating every app on the store every time Rosetta 2 is updated.

Even if that means the users have to retranslate, that's still essentially "free" (to Apple) distributed compute.

Are you suggesting beanie babies disappeared after 6 years? Or only that the speculation did? Because the former is demonstrably false, Beanie Babies continue even now as an available product still interesting collectors. They, of course, aren't really a speculation product anymore, but, they definitely didn't stop existing on the mark after 6 years.

Also good for utterly wasting an enormous amount of power and contributing to global warming.

Nobody is "overwhelmed" by the points in this article as there is no time frame limiting any response. Indeed, nobody has agreed to respond at all. Therefore, "Gish gallop" is not applicable here.

Don't worry, tons of us loved that movie with or without film study backgrounds. It was great either way.

I sympathize with your position and even agree in the context of other types of sites, but, what really needs to happen here is YC users need to learn that nothing in these comment threads is authoritative. This is the land of Dunning-Kruger and nobody should ever directly believe anything here, no matter how trustworthy it seems.

Always verify.

If effort was put into censoring bad information, that might instill a false sense of trust that could never be met by mods. Instead, effort should be put into making sure everyone knows to be skeptical. That, to me, seems more in line with how this site operates.

If people want to be believed, they should cite authoritative sources.

Why would it be 6666 and not 5862?

Just for clarification, is "Cadence" a thing you built with Temporal? I see nothing on that site called "Cadence".

No. A second is "The duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."

The reason to pick up vim is ubiquity, not efficiency. And you REALLY don't need to know much. Maybe half of what's in the vimtutor tutorial is enough. Personally, I'd also suggest at least learning how to do search/search & replace with regex which is easy too (and bonus, has high affinity with sed.)

That seems like the most any modern developer/*nix user should need to concern themselves with vim and wholly for the reason I mention above: it's the most likely text editor to be there on unix-like systems.

That doesn't really explain why an updated to, say, .NET forces a restart. Far too many updates force restarts when it seems they shouldn't require it. It's not just the main OS updates.

Interestingly, as of the most recent edition of macOS, this is how macOS structures itself natively.

It will install the OS itself in read only mode (and encrypted) onto a dedicated APFS Volume, with all the data on a separate APFS Volume, both sharing the same container representing the entire boot drive.

As a user you will not notice at all unless you go looking.

This is mainly for security reasons, as I understand it. But, surely this also makes an OS reinstall or recovery much simpler. I have not yet had the luck to need to do either since this installation model was adopted so I don't know what the impact (positive or negative) to the user is in such a scenario.

Anyway, I find it amusing that such a model has only recently been adopted by a mainstream OS after so many decades of the concept being espoused as important in the general Unix-like world. I wonder if Microsoft will follow suit.

Looking at doing GitHub Packages for direct-to-dev and mirroring into ECR over here. Seems sound. But also considering other options as ECR is a pain to work with.

That said, word of warning for anyone looking at GitHub Packages for docker registry: it's broken with containerd and some other similar tools. They (GitHub) are currently working on a fix: https://github.com/containerd/containerd/issues/3291