He’s acting exactly like a current established Democrat leader. He is proudly saying he doesn’t take money from PACs, except AIPAC is the exception and if you ask why you’re antisemitic. He cares about keeping the democratic unconditionally and uncritically 100 perfect behind Israel as his main policy goal, far more than any domestic concern. In that he has tons of company and is doing his job just fine.
The best Americans can do is an organized protest on a weekend that doesn’t affect the economy, ensuring that it can be safely ignored.
I think it can be repaired but it would require an actual human being as a leader. I dont know if you have that over there in politics.
You have plenty in politics. Special interests (mainly but not exclusively the rich) have seen to it that the American electorate would never make any of them president. Billionaires don’t buy news and media outlets because they love honest journalism.
A good low (basically zero) risk way to start is to flash an image of say Ubuntu onto a flash drive. They’re usually bootable. So you can boot into Linux right off the flash drive.
This obvious takes a performance hit compared to actually installing it, but it’ll let you confirm that it actually works on your hardware.
Apparently when Satya Nadella took over, Steve Ballmer told him “don’t screw up”. In terms of stock price and profits, he absolutely hasn’t. In terms of producing products that consumers might actually want to pay for, he has failed completely and Microsoft has never been in a worse position. But those two things are completely disconnected now so it’s fine.
Why have windows calculator when you can have windows calculator with AI guess what you want to calculate, get it wrong, spy on you, and use that spying to serve you targetted ads all at the same time? #innovation
None of this matters when 2/3rds of potential voters either support this or don’t care.
Have ATC employees actually decided to stop showing up this week?
Usually quantum physics serves as a crank magnet for all kinds of generally leftist kookery, but Jan seems to want to reject it outright for similar reasons that you talk about above with irrational numbers.
I know this isn’t your point, but the non-political way to express a similar rejection of quantum theory was literally just Einstein saying “god does not play dice”, which he famously retracted.
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.
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.
Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it’s a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.
Lol Marco Rubio still thinks he’s going to ass-kiss his way into the big chair.
All that means is that they’re going to do everything they can to rig the midterms.
You guys don’t want change you want you return to the status quo.
You have to win to change things bruh. If you can’t focus on that even a little and focus only on what you want in a perfect world , then it doesn’t matter you want because you’ll never win.
All else being equal a white man less than 65 who believe 95percent the same things as AOC will get at least 5 percent more votes just like that, which is the difference between winning and losing.
But nah, they’ll just shove AI into everything blow the equivalent of Wikipedia’s annual budget in a week on just electricity to shove unwanted AI slop into people’s faces.
You’re off my several order of magnitude unfortunately. Tech giants are spending the equivalent of the entire fucking Apollo program on various AI investments every year at this point.
I mean this thread is about tech that was perfect from it’s inception to the point where it didn’t or barely improved. Nothing could be further from the truth, transistor tech has had literally trillions of dollars and millions of smart people’s careers poured into it, and semiconductor IC manufacturing is now the most complicated single activity that our species does.
So whether he TACO out or not doesn’t really matter for the harm he is doing in the meantime.
The disruptions and chaos are the only the worst part of this because everyone knows he will back down. Otherwise Chinese trade embargo itself would be far worse. If he actually did this the stock market would crash instead of just a hiccup, and the entire economy wouldn’t be far behind. So it absolutely matters whether he chickens out or not.
It’s also not true in a relevant way. In the abstract, on its own, sure. If a presidential candidate argued for less military spending during an election campaign they would be painted as weak , and trying to weaken American increasingly dangerous world. Probably conspiracy theories about them being a foreign agent. And they would either lose outright or at least pay a significant political price.