Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sethammons's comments login

We had a hell of a time attempting to roll out OTel for that kind of work. Our scale was also billions of requests per day.

We ended up taking tracing out of these jobs, and only using on requests that finish in short order, like UI web requests. For our longer jobs and fanout work, we started passing a metadata object around that appended timing data related that specific job and then at egress, would capture the timing metadata and flag abnormalities.


Eating meat doesn't mean the consumed thing suffered. Factory farming might. The farming and slaughter process may be more efficient when causing suffering, but it doesn't have to.

I find a more compelling argument that it is generally awful to end something's joyful existence and experience. But apparently not compelling enough to dramatically alter my diet much. But enough to cause me to save/relocate some bugs in some cases rather than kill them.


Plants don't like being anthropomorphized. Btw, I disagree with your definition.

You are inserting "sentiment" to "hear," "produce," and "in response." These are physical actions. Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?

In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism is assigning human qualities onto non-humans. Like my first sentence.


> Or do you assert trees don't produce fruit in response to good growing conditions?

That's correct -- it's not a response as that term is defined, indeed use of the word "response" implies a misunderstanding of natural selection and suggests inheritance of acquired traits.

In a population of trees in the same environment, some produce more fruit due to random genetic variations between individuals. For chemical and biological reasons those specific trees blindly ascend over other genotypes and are over time more likely to prevail over those less fit. That's not a response as we understand the word, it's a product of mathematics and genetics.

> In response to the rock falling, a large sound was produced, and it startled a fox that heard it. No anthropomorphism.

In fact, assuming we assign a human emotion to the fox, as you did, that would be an example of anthropomorphizing.


What do you think hearing is? It _is_ direct contact. Sound is pressure waves directly contacting you and it is why there is no sound in a vacuum. Ear drums are tuned to a particular frequency range. But you can feel a deep bass in your chest, and that is why deaf people often enjoy deep bass music.

Sound waves in air are generally very weak and couple poorly to solids due to impedance mismatch. That's why ears have ear drums and other clever mechanisms to detect them.

Plants don't have ear drums and you can't feel a an insect buzz in your chest.


You don't need an ear drum to hear, your hearing comes from tiny hairs connected to mechanoreceptors.

Guess what we've found in plants? Tiny hairs (trichomes) connected to mechanoreceptors.

So plants have the nearly the same physical structures that animals use for hearing, but not only that, they also have similar mechanosensitive ion channels too.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685652/


of course I can feel an insect buzz in my chest. Cicadas are amazing in full bloom. I don't find it unpalatable that plant mechanoreceptors could pick up sounds that I cannot.

The squeeze of later stage capitalism: growth disappears as investment gains. Capital is redistributed from the less/non-capital owners to the owners. Any company not willing to push to get competitive ROI will not receive competitive investment. As an investor, why chase x% when x+1% alternatives exist?

the solution is trivial. It is easy. We've whitnessed it several times. Illegal immigration follows jobs. When the economy does poorly, less people come across. I recall a few years ago, they said it was negative immigration! More people were leaving because jobs were hard to get.

Instead of letting the economy do the work, simply enforce the laws we already have on the books. Don't let employers employ non-verified citizens.

The problem is that a common sense solution solves the problem and removes a platform for politicians to yell about and continue to do nothing over.

Step one: enforce labor laws. Step two, watch the system drain itself. Step three, look to naturalize and or remove those left behind.


innocent til proven guilty. This is a core tenant. To not believe such is firmly unamerican.

It is a core tenant for criminal trials, not the civil proceedings of immigration. Instead, lower standards, including probable cause for detainment, or a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for the immigration proceedings is sufficient. That is and has been the American standard.

Legal immigrants to America for over a century accepted and complied with these legal processes, many of which were even more burdensome or discriminatory (quotas, Chinese Exclusion Act, Immigration Act of 1924, etc).

It's unamerican to undermine a core tenant of the US's national sovereignty: the "sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy", by arguing that unregulated, irregular migration is the norm and that any action to enforce immigration law is unthinkable.


Your understanding of American immigration law is incorrect, I'd like to correct you to perhaps help align your understanding of American history with the somewhat wrong-headed idea you have of American values. America didn't become "the melting pot" by having communist-style border checkpoints.

For basically the entire first 80% of our history, the most the federal government would do in regards to immigration was write down someone's name and nationality, then send them on their way. You're right that in the early 1900s, there were finally some restrictions passed, but by that point the national fabric of America was already sewn, and even those restrictions only applied to specific countries. Right up to the modern era, millions and millions of people have been moving to the USA, and only very, very recently has there been an extremely formalized process, or efforts to go out of the way to deport people that aren't committing actual crimes (overstaying visas is a modern thing, and isn't the kind of crime I'm talking about) (and before you get on me about breaking the law making someone a criminal, lemme know how many times you've driven over the speed limit, and whether you verify your turn signals, headlights, and brakelights work every time you operate a motor vehicle).

I grant you that the government is often at odds at our values, such as with the Chinese exclusion act or when they put Japanese in internment camps, but the American culture has been pro-immigration and pro-refugee for our whole history. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses..." No way in hell bureaucracy is more important to us than that value.

American conservative media are really good at repainting history, so they seem to have convinced some people such as yourself that American sovereignty is predicated upon a tightly controlled and monitored border, but that's basically the opposite of the truth of our history. My guess is that the conservatives need scapegoats to distract from the collapse of the living conditions of the working class from the true reasons (higher concentration of wealth) and so they've picked immigrants this time, a typical target. What genuinely surprises me is that people on hacker news, who I consider typically more media-savvy than the average person, are falling for this as well.

Anyway maybe take a quick scan of the wikipedia article to get a better understanding of our history in relation to immigration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...


If your argument against immigration regulation and enforcement boils down to “we’ve only been doing it for 120 years”, that’s got some pretty rough consequences for welfare, civil rights on the basis of race, and even the income tax, right?

If you want to go back to a pre-1900s American system and return to that national fabric, sure! Repeal the NFA and free our 2nd amendment. Repeal the income tax and welfare state, and go back to funding the government via tariffs and excise taxes (the liberal media sure convinced some people tariffs were an anathema to America, right?).

Your idealized “America the melting pot” thrived on the basis of people actually working for what they had, both immigrant and 3rd generation American; rather than sitting around drawing Social Security, disability, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC,TANF, EITC, and housing assistance. I think you’re on to something!


Arguing with a 23 day old account is a lost cause. It's a bot.

So when Trump admitted on Howard Stern that he likes to walk in on naked teenage girls because his role of running the teen universe beauty pageant allows him to get away with that, that is ok because he wasn't running a campaign at the time?

Jump to 1:38 https://youtu.be/kikTv0I8XVw?si=VVfSpMDt7rKEIcRJ


What the heck are you talking about?

Wait. What do you think about Hegseth's signal and atlantic reporter issue? That is wildly worse and where is the court case that absolutely should be happening?

That's nothing. Compare that to deleting 30,000 emails to avoid them being scrutinized in an investigation.

You think Hegseth's use of Signal is nothing. Gotcha. Rules for thee but not for me.

I think using an open source encrypted communication app is no big deal compared to what Hillary Clinton did.

The Democratic Party thinks that what Hillary Clinton did was no big deal. Rules for thee, but not for me.


[flagged]


Comments like this really don't belong in hacker news. They amount to blind partisanship and instigation of flame wars.

comparing Hegseth to HRC will do a whole lot more :)

Clinton deleted 30,000 emails to prevent them from being scrutinized in an investigation.

we are not banana republic (just yet, getting there though) so anyone that breaks a law under a given statute you file charges, run an investigation and punish if law(s) are broken. if memory serves me well there was one :) can’t say the same for Hegseth et al but night is young so-to-speak…

The prosecution record, where Trump and dozens of his allies were prosecuted, is the record of a banana republic.

Like I said there's hundreds of thousands of regulations which hold the potential for criminal sanction. They could have found her guilty of something when she deleted those emails. The SDNY DAG found a way to charge the developers of Tornado Cash with running an illegal money transmission service when they didn't even hold it in custody of any funds, they simply published code. They stretched the law to incredible lengths to get someone they wanted. And they couldn't find something to pin on Hillary Clinton? Ridiculous.

They didn't for political reasons and you're naive or dishonest for believing otherwise.


Eh, starting the clock at ticket creation is likely less useful than starting when the ticket is moved to an in-progress state. Lots of reasons a ticket can sit in a backlog.

Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: