So, in your mind, when the Federal Reserve prints a dollar bill - what's happening in accounting terms? I don't think your understanding of the way this works is consistent with the concept of money supply.
Not your parent but in my mind, when the Fed prints $1 million to replace old bills they take out of circulation and give then to people to stuff into a cube then in accounting terms basically nothing happens at all.
To be precise, the treasury prints the bills, not the federal reserve. The federal reserve balances what money is in circulation by selling or buying bonds. When they issue a bond, someone buys it, so money is removed from circulation. When they buy a bond, money is injected into circulation.
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past"
Could you explain how government research funding constitutes forced speech?
If an individual who receives a government tax credit (say EITC) speaks out contrary to your politics, is the government allowed to withhold that credit too?
My money is taken from me at gunpoint by government forces I cannot resist without facing life in prison. I don't want this money going to random causes I disagree with. The government should be far smaller or we cannot have rights as the government will intrude on us more and more.
Lots of government spending is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Police, courts, fire, ambulance, and military (though size is up for debate).
You haven't seen the worst of it. We had to implement a whole kafka module for a SCADA system because Target already had unrelated kafka infrastructure. Instead of REST API or anything else sane (which was available), ultra low volume messaging is now done by JSON objects wrapped in kafka. Peak incompetence.
We did something similar using RabbitMQ with bson over AMQP, and static message routing. Anecdotally, the design has been very reliable for over 6 years with very little maintenance on that part of the system, handles high-latency connection outage reconciliation, and new instances are cycled into service all the time.
Mostly people that ruminate on naive choices like REST/HTTP2/MQTT will have zero clue how the problems of multiple distributed telemetry sources scale. These kids are generally at another firm by the time their designs hit the service capacity of a few hundred concurrent streams per node, and their fragile reverse-proxy load-balancer CISCO rhetoric starts to catch fire.
Note, I've seen AMQP nodes hit well over 14000 concurrent users per IP without issue, as RabbitMQ/OTP acts like a traffic shock-absorber at the cost of latency. Some engineers get pissy when they can't hammer these systems back into the monad laden state-machines they were trained on, but those people tend to get fired eventually.
Note SCADA systems were mostly designed by engineers, and are about as robust as a vehicular bridge built by a JavaScript programmer.
Anecdotally, I think of Java as being a deprecated student language (one reason to avoid Kafka in new stacks), but it is still a solid choice in many use-cases. Sounds like you might be too smart to work with any team. =3
> Anecdotally, I think of Java as being a deprecated student language (one reason to avoid Kafka in new stacks), but it is still a solid choice in many use-cases. Sounds like you might be too smart to work with any team. =3
Honestly from reading this it seems like you’re the one who is too smart to work with any team.
I like working with folks that know a good pint, and value workmanship.
If you are inferring someone writing software for several decades might share, than one might want to at least reconsider civility over ones ego. Best of luck =3
Many NDA do not really ever expire on some projects, most work is super boring, and recovering dysfunctional architectures with a well known piece of free community software is hardly grandstanding.
"It works! so don't worry about spending a day or two exploring..." should be the takeaway insight about Erlang/RabbitMQ. Have a wonderful day. =3
With legacy equipment there is usually no such thing as a homogeneous ecosystem, as vendor industrial parts EOL all the time. Certainly room in the markets for better options with open protocols. =3
Let’s be real: teams come to the infra team asking for a queue system. They give their requirements, and you—like a responsible engineer—suggest a more capable queue to handle their needs more efficiently. But no, they want Kafka. Kafka, Kafka, Kafka. Fine. You (meaning an entire team) set up Kafka clusters across three environments, define SLIs, enforce SLOs, make sure everything is production-grade.
Then you look at the actual traffic: 300kb/s in production. And right next to it? A RabbitMQ instance happily chugging along at 200kb/s.
You sit there, questioning every decision that led you to this moment. But infra isn’t the decision-maker. Sometimes, adding unnecessary complexity just makes everyone happier. And no, it’s not just resume-padding… probably.
That’s almost certainly true, but at least part of the problem (not just Kafka but RDD tech in general) is that project home pages, comments like this and “Learn X in 24 hours” books/courses rarely spell out how to clearly determine if you have an appropriate use case at an appropriate scale. “Use this because all the cool kids are using it” affects non-tech managers and investors just as much as developers with no architectural nous, and everyone with a SQL connection and an API can believe they have “big data” if they don’t have a clear definition of what big data actually is.
Or, as mentioned in the article, you've already got Kafka in place handling a lot of other things but need a small queue as well and were hoping to avoid adding a new technology stack into the mix.
Redpanda is much more lean and scales much better for low latency use cases. It does a bunch of kernel bypass and zero copy mechanisms to deliver low latency. Being in C++ means it can fit into much smaller footprints than Apache Kafka for a similar workload
Those are all good points and pros for redpanda vs Kafka but my question stills stands. Isn't redpanda designed for high-volume scale similar to the use cases for Kafka rather than the low volume workloads talked about in the article?
In kafka, if you require the highest durability for messages, you configure multiple nodes on different hosts, and probably data centres, and you require acks=all. I'd say this is the thing that pushes latency up, rather than the code execution of kafka itself.
How does redpanda compare under those constraints?
It's pretty safe. Kafka replicates to 3 nodes (no fsync) before the request is completed. What are the odds of all 3 nodes (running in different data centers) failing at the same time?
It's just my polite way of saying it's safe enough for most use cases and that you're wrong.
The fsync thing is complete FUD by RedPanda. They later introduce write caching[1] and call it an innovation[2]. I notice you also work for them.
Nevertheless, those that are super concerned with safety usually run with an RF of 5 (e.g banks).
And you can configure Kafka to fsync as often as you want[3]
It's just my polite way of saying it's safe enough for most use cases and that you're wrong.
Low volume data can be some of the most valuable data on the planet. Think SEC reporting (EDGAR), law changes (Federal Register), court judgements (PACER), new cybersecurity vulnerabilities (CVEs), etc. Missing one record can be detrimental if its the one record that matters.
Does everyone need durability by default? Probably not, but Redpanda users get it for free because there is a product philosophy of default-safe behavior that aligns with user expectations - most folks don't even know how this stuff works, why not protect them when possible?
The fsync thing is complete FUD by RedPanda.
You want durability? Pay the `fsync()` cost. Otherwise recognize that acknowledgement and durability are decoupled and that the data is sitting in unsafe volatile memory for a bit.
They later introduce write caching[1] and call it an innovation[2].
There are legitimate cases where customers don't care about durability and want the fastest possible system. We heard from these folks and responded with a feature they can selectively opt-in for that behavior _knowing the risks_. Again the idea is to be safer by default, and allow folks to opt-in to more risky behaviors.
those that are super concerned with safety usually run with an RF of 5 (e.g banks)
Going above RF=3 does not guarantee "more nines" since you need more independent server racks, independent power supplies or UPSs, etc, otherwise you're just pigeonholing yourself. This greatly drives up costs. Disks and durability is just cheaper and simpler. Worst case you pull the drives and pull the data off them, not fun and not easy, but possible unlike in-memory copies.
And you can configure Kafka to fsync as often as you want[3]
Absolutely! But nobody changes the default which is the issue - expectations of new users are not aligned with actual behavior. Same thing happened during the early MongoDB days. Either there needs to be better documentation/education to have people understand what the durability guarantees actually are, or change the defaults.
I agree that data can be valuable and even one record loss can be catastrophic.
I agree that there needs to be better documentation.
I just don't agree that losing 3 replicas each living in a different DC at once is a realistic concern. The ones that would truly be concerned about this issue would do one of two things - run RF>3 (yes, it costs more) or set up some disaster recovery strategy (e.g run in multiple regions, yes that costs more.)
Because truth be told - losing 3 AZs at once is a disaster. And even if you durably persisted to disk - all 3 disks may have become corrupt anyway.
It is not FUD. It is deterministic. Reproducible on your laptop. Out of all the banks I work with only a handful of use cases use rf=5. Defaults matter, because most people do not change them.
I needed to synchronize some tables between MS SQL Server and PostgreSQL. In the future we will need to add ClickHouse database to the mix. When I last looked, the recommended way to do this was to use Debezium w/Kafka. So that is why we use it. Data volume is low.
If anybody knows of a simpler way to accomplish this, please do let me know.
Lithium-ion is an umbrella term that properly includes common cell chemistries like lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) and lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide (NCA).
It doesn't make sense to compare LFP vs. lithium-ion, because the first is a sub-type of the second.
Most commonly when people say lithium ion they really mean lithium polymer (lipo). Usually for the other lithium ion chemistries they will specify like you Jane (LFP etc).
You are technically correct - that's just how I've seen it casually used
Yes you can be a pendant about a topic to a degree that you manage to confuse even yourself, or you can understand the term is also commonly used to refer to the typical metal oxide cathodes we all are familiar with (NMC, LCO, NCA, lipo). From context it's really the obvious interpretation.
I think this depends very much on how you use the tools.
My experience with email is that people have subject lines, email explicitly identifies to and cc recipients; email is threaded; email often has quotes/excerpting/highlighting from prior parts of the thread.
On the other hand, most chat usage I see is dependent on temporal aspects for threading (people under-utilize platform features for replies etc), tagging is generally only done to ping people to attract attention, chat groups are frequently reused for multiple different purposes.
Leaping to a point-in-time within a chat stream is often a bad user experience, with having to scroll up and down through unrelated stuff to find what you’re looking for.
Stuff in email is just massively more discoverable for me.
That's transparently obvious if you read the press release: Trump analogizes his own personal treatment by the Justice Department with that of Ulbricht c.f. "weaponization of the justice system".
plus in North America you don't really need a darknet market to get a gun illegally. US FedGov ain't gonna get to involved in illegal gun sales in Europe.
Interesting and surprising they really had rules, thanks for the clarification. I'm ashamed to say I opened this page and read it wrong the first time by skipping the first sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_website_authentica...
reply