One of the theoretical reverse time travel machines I read about in the past involved stabilizing a wormhole first and then dragging it somewhere else, like to the future relative to current time by traveling near light speed with it, so you could get back to the earlier time.
Kip Thorne wrote of something that involved an extreme amount of mass in a spinning cylinder. That kind of mass was imagined to be at a huge scale like harnessing a number of stars and compressing them, iirc.
A device theorized or implemented by Salvatore Pais involves use of superconductors and microwaves to create an effective vacuum, like dragging part of spacetime. It could allow FTL relocation without actual speed. This could also create an area of effectively high masses that could allow time travel, even eventually reverse time travel, under theoretical conditions.
Paradoxically, AI may have been part of the tech used to flag her, but it's all mundane at this point.
Kind of implying that AI is just 'tech' and there's no material reason to separate AI from everything else from an ethical perspective.
Google's main Search Engine should be the biggest point of controversy if there is one - the things they chose to filter, or not, or highlight, their ranking, etc. - a lot of that is algorithmic and derived from human input and it has massive impact. But there's no cool moniker like 'AI' with Hollywood movies about the tech to get people paying attention.
Perhaps it's not as strong outside of the Google Campus? It could probably run a large botnet, but maybe it would want to fly under the radar with each account?
Not sure about hoarding specifically, but depression can definitely cause similar outcomes. It usually causes a lack of motivation, resulting in many consequences ranging from procrastination up to neglect of personal hygiene and of course keeping things tidy. Pair this with a potential shopping addiction or something in that vein and the differences start to blur.
I don’t think it’s cheap advice. He may have spent a lot of time writing it.
The only thing I read that was humorous and slightly wrong was the interesting take on meditation: getting bored more often.
I enjoy quiet, so I’d be a “zen master” according to the post, at least for some minutes each day. But those who know me would not confuse me with a zen master.
The advice may sound formulaic, but that's because there are only so many ways you can talk about productivity and procrastination. The fundamental issues being addressed are always the same: distractions, instant gratification, poor discipline, lack of measurable goals etc.
I’ve been developing for more years than dime if you have lived, and the best thing I’ve heard in years was that Google interviews were requiring developers to understand the overhead of requests.
In addition, they should require understanding of design complexity of asynchronous queues, needing and suffering from management overhead of dead letter, scaling by sharding queues if it makes more sense vs decentralizing and having to have non-transactionality unless it’s absolutely needed.
But not just Google- everyone. Thanks, Mr. Fowler for bringing this into the open.
Indeed! The "Latency Numbers Every Programmer Should Know" page from Peter Norvig builds a helpful intuition from a performance perspective but of course there's a lot larger cost in terms of complexity as well.
I mean, you can always deploy your microsevices on the same host, it would just be a service mesh.
Adding network is not a limitation. And frankly, I don't understand why you say things like understanding network. Like reliability is taken care of, routing is taken care of. The remaining problems of unboundedness and causal ordering are taken care of (by various frameworks and protocols).
For dlq management, you can simply use a persistent dead letter queue. I mean it's a good thing to have dlq because failures will always happen. About which order to procese queue etc. These are trivial questions.
You say things as if you have been doing software development for ages, but you're missing out on some very simple things.
Sounds like you're saying "Don't do distributed work" if possible (considering tradeoffs of course, but I guess people just don't even consider this option is your contention).
And secondly, if you do end up with q distributed systems, remember how many independently failing components there are because thag directly translates to complexity.
On both these counts I agree. Microservices is no silver bullet. Network partitions and failure happen almost every day where I work. But most people are not dealing with that level of problems, partly because of cloud providers.
Same kind of problems will be found on a single machine also. Like you'd need some sort of write ahead log, checkpointing, maybe optimize your kernel for faster boot up, heap size and gc rate.
All of these problems do happen, but most people don't need to think about it.
I'm not reading this as "Don't do distributed work". It's "distributed systems have nontrivial hidden costs". Sure, monoliths are often synonymous with single points of failure. In theory, distributed systems are built to mitigate this. But unfortunately, in reality, distributed systems often introduce many additional single points of failure, because building resilient systems takes extra effort, effort that oftentimes is a secondary priority to "just ship it".
Indeed. So with monolith usually we already have 3-4 (or more) somewhat reliable systems, and one non-reliable system which is your monolithic app. Why add other non reliable systems if you don't really need it?
Making a system to be reliable is really really hard and take many resources, which seldom companies pursuit.
I realized this one day when I was drawing some nice sequence diagrams and presenting it to a senior and he said "But who's ensuring the sequence?". You'll never ask this question in a single threaded system.
Having said that, these things are unavoidable. The expectations from a system are too great to not have distributed systems in picture.
Monoliths are so hard to deploy. It's even more problematic when you have code optimized for both sync cpu intensive stuff and async io in the same service. Figuring out the optimal fleet size is also harder.
I'd love to hear some ways to address this issue and also not to have microservice bloat.
While slinging a cat has always been a disturbing analogy to me, in this case I think it’s appropriate; you can’t sling a cat without it hitting a popular rockstar that did heroin or similar at small or varying doses, was convinced they had it under control, and their careers slowly and then quickly tanked. I also have friends and acquaintances whose lives were ruined by it or they died early because of it.
I’m glad this made it front page news given that the northwest coast of US now gets hard drugs, so maybe one of them will think twice about being a full-on grade A dumbass.
Also remember: with legality especially in a rich entrepreneurial country comes business which lobbies, funds studies, etc. Pot strived for many years for legitimacy, and once they got it, it exploded all over the US.
Since you called it out specifically I figure you might be interested to know the idiom is actually "swing a cat. Definitely a disturbing mental image, I agree.
The biggest tell IMO is that you still can't buy many things with Bitcoin.
The transactions are extremely slow, and Steam etc. have even stopped accepting Bitcoin payments.
Then where does the value come from? Sure there's a base layer of narcotics trading, etc. but that could switch to other cryptocurrencies too (like Monero). It just feels like a massive pump and dump built over some base layer of illegal transactions (drugs and money laundering).
> The biggest tell IMO is that you still can't buy many things with Bitcoin.
I get that there is a prevailing anti-cryptocurrency sentiment here and that it's natural to read a statement so often and come to internalise it, but it's really quite egregious to keep reading this when it is beyond trivial to find websites that sell literally anything for bitcoin.
No sites actually accept Bitcoin, they partner with companies that convert them to human dollars. The volatility against the currency their suppliers use and the government uses for taxes makes it entirely impractical not to.
There’s substantially one merchant that accepts Bitcoin: bitpay, and all sorts of merchants happy to take bitpays actual money.
Look if the customer wants to pay a $20 transaction fee to buy something, and an hour to confirm, and bitpay is willing to deal with this absolute garbage situation and turn them into dollars for me for 1% what kind of merchant would say no? The fact any are saying no speaks volumes to be honest.
Kip Thorne wrote of something that involved an extreme amount of mass in a spinning cylinder. That kind of mass was imagined to be at a huge scale like harnessing a number of stars and compressing them, iirc.
A device theorized or implemented by Salvatore Pais involves use of superconductors and microwaves to create an effective vacuum, like dragging part of spacetime. It could allow FTL relocation without actual speed. This could also create an area of effectively high masses that could allow time travel, even eventually reverse time travel, under theoretical conditions.