I like to think it's more than a nit to pick, but does anyone else absolutely despise the way the sql is written in the example? Join table1, table2, table3, table4... then the "on" logic in the where clause, without explicitly defining which columns belong to which table? Completely unsupportable and wastes so much time years from now. Please don't write sql like that, everyone.
"update ... from ..." still uses that syntax and it throws me for a loop every time. I have to stop and think about it while convincing myself it is doing the same thing as "join on".
Who can tell? The WSJ article doesn't even say whether TP-Link hardware or software is the problem, which would seem to me to be extraordinarily important in reporting on this issue.
To be a little more charitable, I don’t think the average non-technical newspaper reader knows or cares about the difference.
Most non-tech people I know treat a router as a black box system - you plug it in, and then when you have issues, you turn it on and off again. If it keeps happening you get a new one. The word firmware will draw blank stares.
I used to do that too, except typically it was hardcore punk and 1980s noise/industrial, but yes there were some Ornette Coleman and Eric Dolphy records in there too.
I finally realized that once I had satisfied my consumerist urge to be the coolest connoisseur, I now had to listen to the stuff, and I didn’t actually like it.
How does a thing called "consumer price index" exclude things like energy and food? How is that even close to honest? Friends of mine in CA with $1,000 PG&E bills. Food prices through the roof, $9 for a goldfish carton. But yeah let's exclude energy and food, because consumers - humans, don't require such things.
The CPI inflation rate gets lower when you include food and energy, not higher. OP simply chose the higher number (3.2) for the HN headline, not the most accurate one (2.9, which includes food and energy)
You're half right. In a sense, food and energy should be included, but the problem is that they're much more volatile--you'd reliably have a huge surge of inflation in the US as gas gets more expensive in the summer, and deflation in the winter as prices go down. This would make it much harder to understand the numbers you were seeing.
"Core inflation is 4%, which is high" is understandable, "Inflation is -1%, but that's actually bad because it's November" is going to make communication basically impossible for non-experts.
I've always thought there ought to be a way to do some kind of damped average, so that you can detect "food has been rising in price for the past few years", but ignore "gas prices surged after memorial day", but it's hard to think through the details and find something that makes sense.
Jobs numbers work the same way, btw...we adjust for seasonal labor.
The implication that this avoids seasonal variation is accurate, but there are also other transitory supply shocks. I believe even accounting for seasonality, food and oil prices are more volatile than other items.
Also, I may be wrong about this, but I'm not clear that you can easily do comparisons like "inflation has been X percent over the past 18 months" if you just do comparisons to 12 months ago.
Most stock pickups, actually. You'd be surprised how low the clearance is on a stock f150 without the various off-road packages. I.e. you can easily have a pickup with basic 4wd but only 8 inches of ground clearance. That's technically "high clearance", but not by much, and the poor approach, departure, and break over angles make it tough too.
Depending on your definition of "good," probably most of them. While I have been guilty of taking questionable AWD rentals on questionable roads in places like Death Valley when younger, you really want properly-equipped Jeep Rubicons and the like that you're not going to get from the average car rental place.
There's not one Zappa, either. There's the one that gave us Hot Rats, which is quite different from The grand wazoo & Waka/Jawaka, which are different from Yellow Shark and Everything is healing nicely. Then there are all the guitar solo albums...
You use multiple anti-virus products. Let's assume you use 3. Do you have multiple clusters of machines, each running their own AV product, so in case one has this problem the other two are unaffected?
How much overhead are we talking about here? Because if you're just using multiple AV software installed on one machine, 1) holy shit, the performance penalty, 2) you'd still be impacted by this, as CS would have taken it down.
They surely mean that all odd number assets are running crowdstrike and even are running sential-one (or similar, %3, %4, etc etc). At least then you only lose half your estate.
I have never seen a company that uses multiple AV products rolled out to user machines, ever. Sure, when you transition from one product to another, but across the whole company, at the same time? Never... I have also never seen a distribution of something like active directory servers based on antivirus software. I think these stories are purely academic, "why didn't you just..." tall tales.
Mine certainly does, our key windows based control systems use windows defender, the corporate crap gets sentinal one and zscaler and whatever else has been bought on a whim.
I'd assumed that any essential company would be similar. OK if your purchasing systems for your hospital are down for a couple of days it's a pain. If you can't get x-rays it's a catastrophe.
If half your x-ray machines are down and half are up, then it's a pain, but you can prioritise.
But lots of companies like a single supplier. Ho hum.
Not the person you're replying to, but in any reasonable organization with automated software deployment it should be easy to pool machines into groups, so you can make sure that each department has at least one machine that uses a different anti-virus software.
Bonus, in case you do catch a malware, chances are higher that one of the three products you use will flag it.
So you have multiple AV products and you target those groups. You have those groups isolated on their own networks, right? With all the overhead that comes with strict firewall rules and transmission policies between various services on each one. With redundant services on each network... you've doubled or tripled your network device costs solely to isolate for anti virus software. So if only one thing finds the zero day network based virus, it won't propagate to the other networks that haven't been patched against this zero day thing.
How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? If you assume many companies are doing this kind of thing, or even a double digit percentage of companies, I have bad news for you.
While this is a great theory, how would you actually accomplish this with antivirus software?
Multiple machines, each one using different vendor software? What other software needs to be partitioned this way? What about combinations of this software?
I’m just barely awake but don’t know if I’m affected yet. One of my devs is, our client support staff is, and I have no idea how our servers are doing just yet.
reply