Readit Newsbayraktar commented on Princeton lab simulates nuclear war (2019) sgs.princeton.edu/the-lab... · Posted by u/data_maan
Lacks plausibility.
Doesn't attempt to describe the context in which this Russian first strike against NATO might occur.
Doesn't mention battlefield nukes, EMP attacks or even high-altitude demonstrative detonations that might more plausibly proceed an actual high-yield land strike on Europe.
Doesn't even mention the yield of this first strike, either. Really, what's the point?
They could have done this "simulation" back in 1983. In fact, it makes me think like I'm watching a certain movie from back in '83.
'83, what a year.
I think, Simon Warldley summarised it good today. (0)
They (think, they) have a niche use-case which is a bad fit for the cloud.
These niche use-cases exist, but they are niche, and most companies, who think their use-case is that niche so it doesn't fit the cloud,are probably wrong.
Chances are you belong to the vast number of companies that should simply put their workloads in the cloud and be done with it.
(0) https://mobile.twitter.com/swardley/status/15838141696564592...
These niche use-cases exist, but they are niche, and most companies, who think their use-case is that niche so it doesn't fit the cloud, are probably wrong.
Talk about broad, sweeping statements. Care to substantiate?
What about the tried and trusted "have some backend generate HTML and push that to the client"?
It still works for me, has many benefits, and many downsides. But so do the "react-alike" frontend frameworks. There's no silver bullet.
It cracks me up (and makes me sad) to see all the effort going into "hydrating, SSR and whatnots" in JS frameworks, where we move our ball of react-js-spagetti onto some deno-based-edge-function-container thing, in order to serve clients plain HTML... I mean, this problem was solved in 1998 already!
Okay, I'm with you - but I meant for, like, people who have some idea of what they're doing (and don't just impulsively reach for a massive framework to deal with routine content dispatch).
What do you suggest for manageable SPA-like development -- for those of us who have actually thought the matter through and have decided that's what we need (at least in certain corners of this otherwise lean and mean, mostly static / old-school website we're building)?
I think you are missing the point.
React/Vue/Angular/Whatever are different flavours of the "framework oriented front end development" thing. Yes there differences in both technices and degree you are forced to use only that framework but the principles are essentially the same.
So what other kind of thing do you suggest (and which currently has some traction)?
Ah, yes. Everyone’s favorite whipping boy: the front end developers. I don’t think the last decade was a mistake. React (and Preact and similar) are my favorite ways to build out UIs. I prefer it to every other thing I’ve tried— and I’ve tried just about every other thing, including building native UIs for a decade.
It’s not perfect. I think we’ll find a better approach eventually, which is why I’m fine with the churn. The churn is part of the search for something better.
I hate the poor UX often produced by React— fat, slow, clunky pages with loading spinners and jank. So, I sympathize with the author. I hope something like Quik gets it’s footing.
But until there’s a better way to build UIs from this subjective developer’s perspective, I’m sticking with React.
I hate my spouse's lousy cooking; the slow, clunky way their hips move when they walk; but most of all, their cringe poetry. But until I find someone better or at least less embarrassing to be seen with in public, I'm sticking with 'em.
OK, so what about Vue.js? Or is it dead to you already?
Can we please stop with this lazy take? “ID your child in case of bad things” kits and programs have been around since at least the early 90s[1] if not earlier. Blockbuster used to have a program where in addition to fingerprinting your kid, you’d make a video tape about them [2] and school based programs have been around since at least the 80s [3]. This sort of lazy “no one would ever worry about their kids safety if it wasn’t for guns” hot take doesn’t do anything at all to contribute to the general discourse.
[1] https://www.mcgruffsafekit.com/ [2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-08-07-me-81-sto... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/22/us/fingerprinting-of-chil...
Looking at the bigger picture - would seem that the Texas state legislature's unwillingness to tackle the issue of overly permissive firearm access is the "lazy take" to be concerned about.
Being as they of course "just can't" do anything to stop people from bringing guns into schools -- in a way, this makes a certain kind of sense for them.
bayraktar commented on 81% of IT teams directed to reduce or halt cloud spending venturebeat.com/data-infr... · Posted by u/nreece
How many would say this normally? I.e., what's the baseline?
Meanwhile, how many are giving their teams the resources (i.e., people) necessary to do the analytics on the bill required to find & cut costs? Every cloud I've worked with has been terrible at billing in a way that could be reasonable investigated. At one point we literally pulled all the billing data into a SQLite database. (And that was a great idea, as it made queries against it much faster.)
Further, most higher ups seem to have a sense of "it won't be invented here", and so a lot of stuff ends up in vendor land; need more people then to pull those separate bills into one spot, and start attributing costs against the revenue they might help generate.
I've also worked a fair number of places where people were cagey about telling eng how much they're spending where. If you want your IT dept. to cut costs, they have to know where the money is going.
And then there's the yak shaving of it all: we've had a support ticket open w/ Azure for 9 days now asking "where did this $1k go?". Our Blob Storage "Cool" tier costs upticked, and I'm 99% sure the bill there is just wrong. Cool storage should be (price * amount stored) and the "how much are we storing" graph is not proportional to the cost graph. The only gotcha is an early delete penalty, and we are also pretty confident we're not hitting that. (We know what's being deleted when, and none of it should be subject to it.) But how does it take a over week to answer the question?
But how does it take a over week to answer the question?
Sounds like the more basic problem is that we keep ending up working in companies where the "higher ups" are constantly shoving decisions down our throats.
Which, ultimately, is probably the root cause of most of the caginess, the yak shaving, the compunction to use cloud databases and cloud-everything, and the silly support tickets that stay open forever and ever and ever.
I work with antimicrobial resistance and phage therapy, and everyone keeps complaining that regulatory frameworks aren't adapting to our needs fast enough, there's no funding, etc. That's all true, because there's no urgent need to move faster.
COVID-19 came along and all those obstacles evaporated. If AMR actually killed 10M+ people a year, in Western / wealthy countries, you bet it would become an "urgent problem" real quick.
I consider these "urgent" problems "aspirationally urgent" in the same way that "we should probably eat less red meat and drink less alcohol and go to the gym more" kind of urgent. It's in the pile of things we should be doing... but we put off.
It's not "urgent" as in "step off of the train tracks or I'll get hit" kind of urgent.
The article specifically puts climate change at the top of its concerns, which is a "step off of the train tracks or you'll get hit" problem if there ever was one -- but in slow motion, of course.
The point of the article, as I read it, was that these problems really are urgent, but our brains and our politics trick us into not seeing them that way because they are either (1) slow moving or (2) call for tedious, fat-tail responses (rather than sexy, exciting, silver bullet fixes).
Rather than "yeah, I should get out to the gym more" a better analogy would be: "Okay, it's time to face it -- I'm definitely an alcoholic. If I don't change my ways, it may not kill me tomorrow, but it's definitely going to catch up with me soon enough. So I better start figuring out a way to turn this boat around, before it heads over the edge."
Which is categorically different from the "aspirational" sense of urgency you seem to be describing.
The ability to discern that certain problems are, in fact, "urgent" (despite their being slow-moving or incremental in their effect) is one of the highly valuable traits that enables some genes (read: species or individuals) to succeed, while others fail.