Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)NV
Posts
0
Comments
1,358
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • That dipshit's wiki entry is a hilarious series of him being a jackass. Like I get that brilliant people sometimes get away with being assholes but I honestly have to wonder - what possible special aptitude could this guy have that lets him survive behaving this way?

  • I think that the reality of the situation is breaking through the Trump Delusion Syndrome a lot of these die-hards had and they are starting to see what really is going on and they're pissed and silently fuming about it now.

    The fundamental problem with this logic is that anyone dumb enough to have fallen for this in the first place (and to vote for Trump again in 2024) is more than dumb enough to fall victim to all the nonsense of the next election. There's no way this momentary glimmer of rationality will survive an election campaign, and the utterly broken epistemology of these people is no closer to being fixed.

  • You really don't see the risk of having no data centers you actually control as an organization?

    This really depends on what you think you're getting from having your own DC. Is it reliability? Flexibility? Control? What are your objectives?

    There's some argument to be made to have some locally hosted stuff for some flexibility and control. And in some niche cases the pricing of public offerings doesn't make sense.

    But as I said, if you're building your own data center for increased reliability then 1) you're necessarily assuming the premise that you're going to be better at managing DCs than Google, Microsoft and AWS which I think in reality would be hard to prove let alone do, and 2) is hard to justify considering you can distribute workloads across multiple data centers already (as proven by the Netflix example) so that your reliability isn't limited by any one vendor.

  • You're kind of proving (part of) my point?

    How? Their reliability would exist without that. There's nothing inherent to their own data center that makes their setup that much better. Having a distributed system across multiple cloud service providers means your actual chance of downtime (here I mean inverse of uptime) is their individual chances of uptime multiplied by each other. In other words, they all have to go down for your service to fail. The catch is you have to use only commodity IaaS and PaaS, nothing proprietary to one CSP.

    For smaller companies especially, in terms of pure reliability, there's no reason to think that they would be better at running a high availability data center than Microsoft or AWS or Google.

    Parallel distributed architectures give you the advantages of using public cloud (not having to physically manage your own data center) without the disadvantages (dependence on any one cloud vendor), while also potentially increasing your reliability beyond the reliability of any one of your cloud vendors . That is why Netflix is so rock solid.

  • If we want a truly robust system, yeah, we kinda do. This sort of event is only one of the issues with allowing a single entity to control pretty much everything.

    What I'm advocating for is the opposite of "allowing one entity to control everything".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering#Chaos_Monkey

    Read about it dude. Netflix has a large presence in all major cloud providers (and they have their own data centers), but has a service whose uptime is NOT dependent on any one of those hosting environments. The proof is the pudding - Netflix service did not go down in the recent AWS outage, nor in the last one.

    All of that can be achieved WITHOUT completely abandoning public cloud services and having to completely host all of the hardware for their services.

  • prejudice is still bad! misandry/reverse racism doesn't exist (full stop) but a black person could still be prejudice against white people, or a women could be prejudice again men. that doesn't excuse it, but words and connotation matter.

    Yes, words and connotations matter which is why the whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they're the only "correct" definition is so pointless . It is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she's engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that's all.

    There were already terms for this - the word "systemic" was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn't exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them - like seriously if you can't even win them over then maybe your strategy sucks?).

    It's all the more tragic because this whole time feminist discourse could have been focusing on the actual problem of systemic misogyny and systemic racism instead of fighting linguistic battles that have all been conclusively lost.

  • lol it's not even an argument it is an accepted fact in academia. your misunderstanding of higher level concepts is not a valid argument against it

    This whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they're the only "correct" definition is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she's engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that's all.

    There were already terms for this - the word "systemic" was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn't exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them).

  • We don't have to. It is entirely possible to engineer applications and services in a way that they're not dependent on any one cloud service, while also using cloud services for IaaS. Netflix famously does this, and sure enough Netflix experience no service interruptions during this latest outage despite having a large AWS presence.

  • I mean the hilarious thing about the movie is that the guy in the left was also supposed to be super elite or whatever and be the final boss for Arnold. Arnold circa 1982 vs a guy who looks like he drinks a 6 pack of beer every day. The most lopsided boss fight in a movie.