Larger than 2GB RAM JVM containers? It sounds like the author didn't really explore any of modern container-ready frameworks and blamed the ecosystem. Move from Spring Boot -> Micronaut or Quarkus and compile your code into into GraalVM image and you get sub-100MB containers.
I am in NJ and shelves are not empty here but the prices are off the charts. In December I bought eggs in Stop and Shop for $3.19 for a dozen of large brown eggs. Yesterday I bought the same eggs for $9.75 each.
Store: Rochester NY and Buffalo NY -> 365 by Whole Foods Market, Large Brown Grade A Eggs, 12 Count, 24 oz, $4.19
Notably, if I put in Downtown LA as the store location, I actually get even cheaper eggs offered. Not sure where this market's getting their prices from:
Store: Downtown Los Angeles, 788 S Grand Ave, Los Angeles, CA -> 365 by Whole Foods Market, Grade A Eggs Cage-Free Plus Large Brown (12 Count), 24 oz, $3.79
Using: Whole Foods - Eggs [1] with a local store selected
Which in many cases would break SOC2 compliance (co-mingling of development and customer resources), and even goes against the basic advice offered in the K8s manual. Beyond that, this limits your ability to test Control Plane upgrades against your stack, though that has generally been very stable in my experience.
To be clear I'm not defending the 47 Cluster setup of the OP, just the practice of separating Development/Production.
Why would you commingle development and customer resources? A k8s cluster is just a control plane, that specifically controls where things are running, and if you specify they can’t share resources, that’s the end of that.
If you say they share the same control plane is commingling… then what do you think a cloud console is? And if you are using different accounts there… then I hope you are using dedicated resources for absolutely everything in prod (can’t imagine what you’d pay for dedicated s3, sqs) because god forbid those two accounts end up on the same machine. Heh, you are probably violating compliance and didn’t even know it!
The frustrating thing with SOC2, or pretty much most compliance requirements, is that they are less about what’s “technically true”, and more about minimizing raised eyebrows.
It does make some sense though. People are not perfect, especially in large organizations, so there is value in just following the masses rather than doing everything your own way.
The problem is you need to be able to convince the auditor that your controls meet the requirement. That's a much easier discussion to have with robust logical or physical separation.
I would want to have at least dev + prod clusters, sometimes people want to test controllers or they have badly behaved workloads that k8s doesn't isolate well (making lots of giant etcd objects). You can also test k8s version upgrades in non-prod.
That said it sounds like these people just made a cluster per service which adds a ton of complexity and loses all the benefits of k8s.
In this case, I use a script to spin up another production cluster, perform my changes, and send some traffic to it. If everything looks good, we shift over all traffic to the new cluster and shutdown the old one. Easy peasy. Have you turned your pets into cattle only to create a pet ranch?
It's not voluntary if your customers have signed contracts with you on the basis that you gain and maintain that certification. And if they haven't, you shouldn't have wasted your money.
>Further, the democrats have been in power for 12/16 years, and multiple years controlling all 3 houses.
When was this exactly? The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare.
The "Stupak amendment" was exactly that. There were a group of Dems who wanted concessions on federal funding that were holding out until that amendment went in the bill.
That something I find that the left/liberals/progressives doesnt get.
The democrat party is not progressive. If they ever have 60 seats in the senate they will fracture and argue with the progressives elements. Most of the democrat party’s constituents are conservative, religious. Most of the minorities they take for granted are not onboard with nonbinary identities, or anything to do with fetus elimination. They just are afraid of republicans for one reason or another.
> The last time democrats controlled presidency and both houses was during Obama's first term and they passed the most historic overhaul of healthcare in this country, which was a huge win for women's healthcare.
Was it? From a foreign perspective it doesn't seem to have changed the conversation around US healthcare at all.
Before ACA you could be denied health insurance or coverage due to pre-existing conditions (or they could charge you so much that it was infeasible to get insurance).
This was huge because if you ever lost insurance and got new insurance (switched jobs) then you were often screwed.
ACA defined essential benefits. Before ACA insurance usually didn't cover things mental healthcare.
Required coverage of preventative care/screenings/reproductive care for women.
Annual and lifetime coverage limits were banned. Your health insurance could no longer drop you because you got an expensive to treat cancer.
The amount of desperately needed consumer protections ACA added were immense.
Sure there are problems with ACA, especially the marketplace part of it, but overall it was a big change to healthcare in the US.
That’s putting it mildly. Sure, the ACA was, in many respects, a big improvement over what came before it. But it’s still outrageously broken. Let’s consider the perspective of a person who wants health insurance:
1. You mostly want to be insured via your employer, and you mostly get screwed if you leave your job. The financial disincentives to insuring yourself are huge unless you qualify for the subsidies.
2. For some bizarre reason, you can use only buy insurance at some times of the year.
3. You more or less have to buy insurance through a website that is massively and incomprehensibly bad. Want to figure out what that insurance covers? It’s sort of doable, but it sure isn’t easy.
4. Whether or not you will get to fill a given prescription still seems arbitrary and vaguely malicious.
5. The whole system rubs the insane list prices of healthcare in your face, almost continuously. For drugs, even small amounts of Internet searching points out how much cheaper they are basically anywhere else.
It’s really hard to be excited about the ACA.
(For added fun, and this isn’t really the ACA’s fault but it sure is a failure of affordability and sure seems like a massive failure of government: check out hims.com. Pulling a random example, “generic for Cialis” is at least 3x the price on hims.com as it is via GoodRx.)
And if you are relatively healthy and able to pay your regular doctor bills out of pocket, ACA made catastrophic insurance illegal (because of the minimum requirements). It's sort of like making car insurance require $50 copays to the mechanic. Sure, it's nice if you need an engine rebuild, but paying for all that makes the insurance a lot more expensive if you have a reliable car. There's no need for me to pay the doctor's bill and the insurance company's profit+overhead, I'd like to have the option to pay normal stuff myself and only insure something too large for me to pay.
This might not be quite what you want, but the ACA does allow for High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP). Those have consumers paying out of pocket for normal stuff, using a Health Savings Account (HSA).
Which are, nonetheless, rather impressively worse in basically all respects than the old medically underwritten individual plans. Other than the fact that anyone can get them, of course.
I’m not saying that the ACA was a bad law. I’m saying that a not-so-nerdy voter contemplating whether ACA is a great achievement of the Democratic Party is likely to be unimpressed.
Worse in some ways, better in others. The old individual plans usually had serious limits on coverage of pre-existing conditions. And they had lifetime coverage limits which could be exhausted by a single serious illness or injury.
While your complains are all true and the ACA is a mess compared to any developed country, it is still very exciting to have the ACA. For anyone who was barred from getting insurance before, it is the lifesaver, literally.
Compared to other countries, ACA isn't very good (to put it mildly) but compared to how the US was before it, it is the most wonderful improvement ever.
You can use a broker (free to you) and get the same (regulated) plans. If your situation is at all complicated you should definitely use one. Probably even for “simple “ cases.
It was a great thing for the people who most needed healthcare, but it priced me (young at the time and healthy) out of the market. I went from having cheap employer-sponsored healthcare to not being able to afford it (literally from less than 10% to ~50% of my paycheck).
I'm from the other side of the Atlantic. Do you mind explaining how that happened?
To give you some context: every country is different here but usually we have an almost free healthcare system covering everything for everybody (but sometimes you have to wait for a long time) and private healthcare that is more expensive, usually faster but not necessarily better.
Here in the UK my wife and I have between us spent a fair bit on private medical care over the last year - in the case of my wife for cataract operation on both eyes and in my case dental implants and related procedures.
What I find amusing about private health care in the UK is that in each case I have ever used it they make it clear that if something goes seriously wrong they will take you to an NHS hospital.
>What I find amusing about private health care in the UK is that in each case I have ever used it they make it clear that if something goes seriously wrong they will take you to an NHS hospital.
Privatize the winnings, socialize the losses, the "free market" working as intended.
Most of the prices going up for young and healthy people is just the math insurance companies have to do when they can't deny people and have to provide more coverage.
The part where we don't have the free healthcare system is mostly due to politicians being afraid of socialism or being afraid of raising taxes or both and a very strong medical lobby that doesn't want the salaries of doctors (very high over here) to drop.
And in that circumstance you are allowed to maintain your health insurance (COBRA) or buy a new plan ("qualifying life events," which also includes things like marriage and moving).
The comment you're responding to was alluding to if people could choose to not pay for health insurance until after they got injured or sick and then needed the benefits.
Can you explain this more to me? What does it mean to be unable to afford healthcare? As I understand, it is a law that you must have it, or you pay a fine to the IRS by your tax return. Do you really have no healthcare now?
Unable to afford healthcare is pretty straightforward, I think. My plan went from being a relatively small amount I would pay for peace of mind, to being a giant expense that would leave me destitute. As far as the fine, if it hadn't been revoked it would just come out of my tax return, so "paying" would have been no big deal. Yeah, still don't have healthcare. I realized I don't need it much and became more fatalistic after living without it.
That is an unbelievable story. Thank you to share. Stories like this keep me coming back to HN. It is crazy to think that you are gainfully employed, but cannot afford healthcare. I wish you good health!
Yeah, access. That’s what we were all freaking out about. Lack of access. That’s what makes our system different from the rest of the western world. Access. Glad we’re drowning in access.
With a simple majority, they can change the rules of the Senate so that a simple majority will get a bill passed. The filibuster is not in the Constitution.
> How is it in the interest of the Ukrainians to trigger this invasion? Russia has always made it clear that Ukraine was a red line for what it sees as NATO encroachment on its borders.
This is completely false. "NATO encroachment" is a VERY recent talking point which is part of the neo-fascist narrative that Russia developed attempting to excuse its own inadequacies. You should google Foundations of Geopolitics which is basically a Russian version of Mein Kampf. This book is required reading for majority of Russian politicians, diplomats and high ranking military officials. Before Russia decided that it wanted to pursue a fascist state, NATO was not on its agenda at all.
Russia the fascist state? Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
In the U.K people are currently being jailed for years for mild social media posts. Hopefully the Axis of resistance will liberate the West. This American certainly hopes so.
>How dare you call Russia the fascist state when Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia and New Zealand.
So in Russia you can't support the country you're currently at war with. In the West you can't criticize a man who stabbed three children at a Taylor Swift concert.
Would you like to reconsider who has greater free speech rights?
American as apple pie. You're a hacker, see where the IP I'm commenting from is located. What hubris to think millions of Americans aren't completely fed up with this fascist empire. If you're still unsure, for 20 years now Congressional approval hasn't cracked 30%.
I'm sorry but the stats are readily available online. Far more people both in totality and per capita are arrested for saying things online in the non-U.S anglosphere than Russia.
Don't get me wrong, the United States wants the same for its citizens but our annoying Bill of Rights and Supreme Court have slowed the descent into tyranny.
Doesn’t even matter at this point? Do we have free speech when the boundaries of what is acceptable speech is defined by an oligarchy that is willing to suppress stories in all forms of media?
One thing seems certain to me: we were never free. Those in power will do as they please. Here or in Russia it’s all the same.
Right. Because we don’t have Snowden on the run. Because we don’t have a media empire that is suppressing every single Israeli war crime. Because we don’t have international bodies like the ICC being used against our enemies (eg Serbs) and being suppressed against our friends (eg Israelis).
Russia has its interests. It puts them above human rights. We have our interests and guess what we do the same.
Need I remind you that we fabricated reasons to invade Vietnam and Iraq and in the process we killed millions of civilians? Or do you need a list of all the governments we admit to have toppled over the years?
Our misguided belief that we occupy some moral high ground is objectively making the world a worse place. By our hands and by the fact that we are enabling other countries to act the same (eg Iran and Russia). How about instead we concretely define principles and standards that we apply uniformly? Why do we have to pretend like we are uniquely act with impunity on the global stage?
In this case, that's because he's got rid of his Linkedin account since that article footer was written (I follow Neil via Mastodon, he discussed it there).
If the blog footer is intended to contain links to identity, I'd make that whole footer dynamic and then I'd just keep a single source for that.
Alternatively, arguably better: Keep a master domain for each identity and update social media accounts for that identity on a page in the master domain.
Of course not all lawyers are the same. There are some that really do get tech. Or more like the niche they specialize in, because the days of being a polymath are over, the tech world is way too large and complex these days to know it all.
That said, I thought exactly the same reading the article. If he thinks he's already one of the more tech savvy ones, that only proves the point of the article he's criticizing.
Why is everything these days revolve around ChatGPT(etc). You don't need LLMs to refute Chomsky language models. Modern linguistics pretty much rejected [1] his theories on the basis of evidence.
Thanks for posting, finally some support for his supposed debunking! Interesting reading for sure.
That work fails to support Chomsky’s assertions. The research suggests a radically different view, in which learning of a child’s first language does not rely on an innate grammar module.
Instead the new research shows that young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand the relations among things.
These capabilities, coupled with a unique human ability to grasp what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen.
The fact that very smart people think this refutes Chomsky makes me quite sad. They basically restated the UG theory in the last sentence, as proof that it’s wrong…
Chomsky has been saying for literal decades that language is likely a corollary to the basic reasoning skills that set humans apart, but people still think UG means “kids are born knowing what a noun is” :(
I'm reminded of a 400 leve linguistics class I took in undergrad. We had just read Chomsky's Remarks on Nominalization, and one of my classmates remarked, "I don't think this Chomsky guy understands X-Bar theory". The joke being that Chomsky was the major developer of X-Bar theory. We were just reading an early work of his.
This also reminds me of evolution. Some people looked at discoveries in epigenetics and declared that it disproved Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckian evolution.
Sure, Darwin's theory of natural selection combined with random variation at the point of reproduction does not explain 100% of evolution, but it is still covers most of it.
Certainly there has been a shift of many applied linguistics researchers away from generative linguistics, but it is still quite common among university linguistics departments and continues to be actively researched (source: took linguistics courses in college a couple of years ago).
This is not atypical. Unfortunately this is true for both Coinbase and Gemini. I had Coinbase support tickets that went 8 months without being responded to. I had Gemini support tickets that were being ghosted for a few months and then closed. These companies operate in a different dimension of customer care.
As for Ukrainians: have you considered using PayPal? Since last year it's widely supported in Ukraine and opening an account is fairly easy.
Palm Pilot was a huge success both from a sales perspective and from "getting consumers comfortable with touch screen" perspective. The author of the article has a very poor choice of metaphors and examples which really obscures his point.
reply