This is a rather large assumption. I have had plenty of times when I thought I had noticed a trend of some sort and turned out to be mistaken, and so stopped relying on the heuristic. Insisting that everyone is biased (as opposed to observing that anyone can be) is a good way to filter out unexpected and perhaps unwelcome observations.
If I had to guess, it would be an assumption that TCP was edge to edge with no translation in the middle.
My guess is that this is talking about systems in the middle of the network, changing (for example) their sizes by combining and splitting packets to fit through various transits.
When you've got 80,000 engineers you end up with lots of different opinions on what the wire protocol should look like.
* Sometimes, you want to fail closed - errors are returned for all errors.
* Sometimes, you want to fail open - ok is returned for errors.
* Sometimes, you want to separate "failure" from "denied", the code "worked", but it didn't do what the client wanted - think "payment declined", so you return "OK", with the actual result in the response.
Compare the different costs to charge a credit card that is expired vs one that works.
* The expired one can be checked before calling out to the processor - cheap, returns "OK + Declined".
* The success ends up with a call to the processor and takes a second or two, returns "OK + Success".
I don't see much difference in art created by an artist using an AI, art created by an artist using photoshop, and art created by an artist using red ochre. They are all using tools to express something.
Many artists in fact do exactly this -- they do not make the art themselves, but instead imagine and manage the 'art project' and delegate tasks to other artists that work for them. Leonardo (Da Vinci) in fact himself did this with much of the work required for his paintings, although the most crucial parts he left for himself.
Was your only input to ask some guy? When I play with SDXL, I can spend an hour or more on a single image, between prompting and inpainting, and playing with dozens of variables. Each final work is a collage made by generating each detail of the image separately many times. And then I would usually process that final image in some other software to get the final result I want.
Photography and cinema are art forms, even if your phone has a camera. So is painting, even if a baby can fingerpaint. You can ask ChatGPT to give you an image of a cat, but you can also use AI as a tool to express yourself in personal and unique ways.
I honestly don't want to be rude or attack anyone's opinions, but I really think one can only believe generative images can't have artistic value due to ignorance.
Yea, it's pretty silly that this is the case in our culture, and is a mark against using the paradigm of property rights to manage acknowledging the contributions of creatives
Employees might not get to claim the cost of their car (loan and depreciation), but contractors will. Healthcare doesn't come into it, NZ has government provided healthcare.
While you don't get vacation, you get to claim a lot of expenses.
In New Zealand, it's pretty much "at-will" anyways, with the cost of removing an employee typically being 3-months wages.
Personally, being a contractor was much more profitable than being an employee, even if I was on the same wage.
> In New Zealand, it's pretty much "at-will" anyways, with the cost of removing an employee typically being 3-months wages.
No way. Removing an employee in NZ (other than for redundancy) requires a series of warnings about performance and assistance to said employee each time to get their shit together. It takes months, is easy to get wrong by missing some step, and it's nothing whatsoever like "at-will".
Redundancy may be the method they implied. I've seen it happen to my partner and several colleagues. It's laughable how easy it seems to tailor a redundancy to 1 or a few specific people, and the cost of fighting it is not worth it.
Faux redundancy is indeed a tool that can be used by smaller NZ employers. It's risky though for bigger companies to try it and it would never work for the homogeneous group that is Uber drivers, since they all effectively fill a single identical role, and redundancy must be about the role, not the person(s) filling it.
In this particular case I think this might be a bit of a red-herring discussion for Uber. I doubt they care about the drivers for reasons that aren't legitimate for firing them. For example, if the driver isn't getting enough rides to justify paying them they probably are redundant.
In New Zealand it's illegal to make someone redundant and then hire back someone into the same position for at least six months. You don't make a person redundant, you make a role redundant. This would be hard for Uber to do with drivers.
That could be so for first offences but I would imagine any business flouting the law and making repeated appearances in the employment court would experience escalating punishments.
If an employer wants to dismiss an employee (end their employment), they must:
* act in good faith
* have a good reason
Redundancy would cost three months reasons and Uber would be required Uber to argue, not that the person doing a job isn't a worthy employee, but that the role they perform shouldn't exist in the company anymore – a hard argument for Uber to make about their drivers I imagine.
> NZ has government provided healthcare.
Which contractors have to pay for through ACC levies.
ACC levies in NZ pay for no-fault accident insurance - it's paid in part by taxpayers, and (for industrial accidents) paid for by employers (companies that employ coal miners pay more than companies that employ programmers).
Our public health system (hospitals, doctors, etc) are different and is largely paid for from income tax (lower than many states in the US, 10% lower marginal rate than I was paying in CA).
Yea it's very different to the US, and it's much much cheaper than what people in the US would think when they think about paying health insurance, but contractors do generally need to pay ACC levies still. Flat rate is a little over 1%, and for high risk industries you would generally pay more.
We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system.
The ACC (which is meant to cover injuries) often refuses to help, sets impossible burdens of proof, or provides completely inadequate compensation.
And they've only gotten worse since covid (their website still says they require you to be fully vaccinated to visit them - even if you're visiting due to a vaccine injury).
> NZ has government provided healthcare.
We really don't. You won't be bankrupted by hospital bills, but the absolute shambles that we're working with is far from an adequately functioning healthcare system.
We do have it though, and it works, though it's not perfect. Wait times are definitely long unless you go private, but the public system has helped me many times. I've not had to deal with ACC, so I can't speak to that.
In practice if you work for a good company you often get health insurance included or at a discount (at least all the software companies I've worked for have done this), so you get a mix of public/private healthcare and that works pretty decent.
I can't imagine the stress of the nightmare inducing hospital bills you hear about in the US.
My experience with ACC (broken achilles full reconstruction, 3 operations in the private system and physio, 80% salary for time off) has only been positive - I know some people have a different experience but IMHO when it works it works really well
When it works sure, but too often the system is adversarial and the behaviour more in line with what you'd see from a private insurer - as opposed to a government entity acting for the good of the people.
Names are fuzzy things, and what you write on a piece of paper can change. What's on your ID can change over time too.
I've known people who couldn't get their name into the system (no last name), couldn't fit their names into the system (two last names, no hyphen), changed family name (spouses), change first name, put in a different first name (sometimes Timothy, sometimes Tim), their name didn't _fit_ in the field (too many characters, unexpected character encoding), trans people.
This should be expected by computer systems, and expected by staff.
Each object has an external key and an internal key. This separation allows you to migrate to other layouts, technologies, etc. without breaking your customer's links or records.
Internally, your database looks like:
User
ID - uint128
external_id - UUID (of some sort)
name - string
Post
ID - uint128
UserId - uint128 (User.ID)
external_id - UUID
...
Then you have secondary indices on the external_id columns in both tables, and the UserId column on Post. You can then join from one to the other using the ID column.
e.g.
SELECT count(*) FROM
Post JOIN User
ON User.ID = Post.UserID
WHERE
User.external_id = <%USERID_FROM_REQUEST%>;
// Don't forget to bind USER_ID_FROM_REQUEST instead of
// concating the string, no Johny-Tables here!
There should be significant performance benefits from using int's for the joining keys (at least compared to strings), but my experience might be old.
A uuid is just an uint128, or a byte array of the same size. A DB can use them as fixed size keys just fine, and they convert quickly from/into their string representaion.
The problem is indexing and generation.
For example sqlite already generates sequential ids whether you use them or not.
Non sequential uuids suck for indexing as the table grows. There are some benchmarks and explanations to look up.
The benefit is you can merge aggregates from different DB instances without a fuss. And you can generate uuids without asking your DB.
There are other fun ideas to explore e.g. if your external id is a hash you can rebuild, it might be an option to scavenge the full hash but keep the first few bytes of it, indexed. That increases lookup costs if the hash does not exist or has been scavenged but lowers storage.
In fact if your external ids are evenly distributed you can do that anyway, only index the few leading / trailing bytes of the id. That will increase lookup costs a bit but significantly decrease storage.
My point is that limiting swimming in certain areas is hardly the same thing as banning all swimming, it just feels like there is an alarmism about alarmism and perhaps there can be nuance and self-reflection from all sides of the debate.
reply