Yeah I know. Hence mentioning record types in the question you're reponding to. But yes, that wikipedia page has some info:
> WKS: Record to describe well-known services supported by a host. Not used in practice. The current recommendation and practice is to determine whether a service is supported on an IP address by trying to connect to it. SMTP is even prohibited from using WKS records in MX processing.[12]
Others have answered, but I think the general principle for a Region is that between the AZs you have less than 1ms latency, physical separation between the data centers, but they may still be in the same floodplain, be able to be hit by the same hurricane, etc.
I find it depends a lot on my level of understanding of the project I'm working on. If I wrote 20% or more of the code, or if I was involved in the design, etc., when there is a problem I know just where to look and can get there quickly.
For example, if I'm working on a Python script under 1000 lines I would never use a debugger. I might use wireshark or linux system tools if something was really wrong, but usually the trackback or program output is sufficient.
I've also tried to debug an Arduino project where I had a lot less knowledge of how the system works, and if I wasn't able to attach a debugger I don't want to know how long it would have taken me to find the problem (calling a null function pointer causes an interrupt that didn't have any handler).
I've also tried to debug other people's projects in high level languages, without a debugger where after taking about an hour to figure it out based on pure reason, realizing it would have been very quick and easy to find with a debugger.
I think if you look at what a program is doing, and at that point you can't form a testable hypothesis as to what is happening, at that point a debugger will certainly be faster if you know how to use it.
> I find it depends a lot on my level of understanding of the project I'm working on. If I wrote 20% or more of the code, or if I was involved in the design, etc., when there is a problem I know just where to look and can get there quickly.
Well, I mean... Ever wonder why that is? Your understanding of the various states the program can get into is fresh in your mind. Come back to it in a year after not looking at it all that time and suddenly you're relying hardcore on your unit test suite to contain that same knowledge in "automated proof" form... OR you start spending a lot of time in the debugger to "re-understand" the system, slowly and manually... Or both.
If you need to use a debugger, it's because you are in some unexpected state. With full understanding comes full control and in those cases, no, you need neither a debugger NOR a test suite, but since a test suite on well-written code already identifies many possible state failures, I've found that leaning on that instead of a debugger works out better in the end.
I used the J-Link but I wanted to do it on Linux, so I used the JLink GDB Server along with the GDB build that comes with the Arduino IDE. It probably takes me a good 5 minutes to get everything set up, but the basic stuff works: breakpoints, stack trace, reading and writing memory locations.
The setup is a little convoluted, I'm not sure if there is a better way, but here are my notes:
Procedure for running w/ debugger attached.
1. disconnect debugger's usb
2. connect device via usb
3. arduino IDE program device
4. identify elf, set up gdb with elf.
5. plug in debugger
6. run jlink gdb server
7. attach gdb to jlink server "target remote:2331"
8. "monitor reset", "continue" to re-run target from beginning.
9. observe device is recognized by Arduino IDE
10. open Arduino IDE serial monitor to interact with device.
Now, Ctrl+C in GDB halts device, and stack etc. can be inspected, and
then it can continue running with "cont".
To rerun the device with the same program without redoing everything,
go to step 8 and reset the device. and continue from there.
To find .elf on linux:
==================================================
find /tmp -name sketch_name.ino.elf 2>/dev/null
gdb location:
==================================================
/home/user/.arduino15/packages/arduino/tools/arm-none-eabi-gcc/4.8.3-2014q1/bin/arm-none-eabi-gdb
JLink setup command:
==================================================
JLinkGDBServer -device ATSAMD21G18A -if SWD -speed 4000
gdb attachment:
==================================================
(gdb) target remote:2331
Not sure, I haven't used that platform personally, there is probably a debugging interface to the chip but it will probably require different hardware/software.
I think if the government is going to subsidize something, politically aerospace makes a lot of sense. It has jobs for engineering, technicians, and high-skill trades. It has a long planning horizon and lots of regulation (meaning less short term competitive forces at play). It has defense applications. The downside is that everyone else is also subsidizing it, so it is still hard to compete.
Boeing as a company is massively subsidized. People often like to play this game where they specifically mention a model number and make the claim that that specific model wasn't, while ignoring that the entire company, infrastructure, and apparatus is.
The US subsidizes Boeing, European countries subsidize Airbus, and Canada subsidizes Bombardier. Playing semantic games doesn't alter that reality.
Boeing bought the land and built an entirely new plant and factory for the 747 (the Everett plant). No government funds were received for it.
Boeing lost money for the first 10 years on the 747, but then it started making massive amounts of money off of it. Those profits funded the 757, 767, etc.
Every government dollar (over)spent in Boeing-branded thing is a subsidy for every other Boeing-branded thing. The same way every dollar NASA spends with SpaceX's Falcon 9/Dragon systems subsidizes the development of further generations of Falcon/Dragon/BFR systems. It's really hard to assume this money is not spent thinking about the strategic side effects.
You'll need better evidence for comingling of funds than that. I'd have a better case for saying that the immense profits from BCAC are what enables Boeing to even bid on defense contracts.
Thank you. What's glaringly missing is what timescale these figures cover. Annual? Aggregate? It's also pretty clear that the figures have no relevance to the 747.
"The USG's defense against the charges noted that the NASA and DoD contracts in question were arms-length commercial transactions where Boeing was paid for research commissioned by the two government agencies. The USG further noted that the NASA research projects were undertaken for public benefit, and that the results and benefits were widely shared, including with Airbus."
I guess the question if it could be answered would be can the profits and losses of civ vs military programmes be sussed out somehow? That would shed some light on whether subsidies play a role, discounting “pollination” from skunkworks.
It would be illegal for Boeing to funnel money for military contracts to the civil aviation side. In fact, BCAC (Boeing Commercial Airplane Company) and BMAC (Boeing Military Airplane Company) are separate accounting entities for this reason.
If there's a belief that BCAC is actually a money-losing operation propped up by money funneled from BMAC, there needs to be some strong evidence for this. BCAC is massively profitable.
Interesting, so does that mean there is no merit to the accusation made by euros that Boeing commercial is subsidized by Boeing military? I mean, I keep hearing people say that as received knowledge, but perhaps they are just thinking about technological cross pollination which while important, doesn’t help that much in bringing new products to market.
There's not any merit in the accusation. The government did subsidize Boeing's SST program, but the technology developed for that wasn't usable for the subsonic jets. (For example, Boeing airliners use 3000 psi hydraulics, while the SST used 4500 psi to save weight. Such required a totally redesigned hydraulic system. 4500 psi is very dangerous, spray from a pinhole leak will cut right through you.)
Military stuff, sure. The civil aviation stuff, no. Boeing did try to sell the military the 747 as a tanker, but that went nowhere and Boeing did not receive any government dev funding for it.
The 707 did have a tanker version, the KC-135, but that happened after the 707 was flying. The 707 was funded entirely out of profits.
I'd appreciate if you could show how the credit rating, stocks, employee training and business management of the civilian part and the military part of Boeing are two things. Additionally it would be nice to show the R&D firewall between the military and civilian parts of Boeing.
The 747 only exists because of subsidies and defense contracts. If the US government were not heavily involved in the industry, we'd all be flying in Airbus jets.
These subsidies made the development of the 747 possible.
Look at the history of Boeing [1]. It's all government contracts, with the technologies and designs developed for them being re-used in their commercial offerings.
Without cost-plus contracting paying for cutting-edge R&D, they would have been about as capable of building airplanes as I am, in my garage. Their entire business is built on millions of hours of engineering experience in building planes for the military, applied to the commercial sector.
> It's all government contracts ... Their entire business
That's not what your source says at all. Boeing, for example, developed the first modern airliner in the 1930's. Pretty much all airliners derive from that. In fact, you can reasonably argue the other way - Boeing's military designs derived from their airliners. This is certainly the case for the B-17 and the KC-135.
Please identify the military technology and subsidy in the 747, and where the money came from to build the Everett plant.
The money came from corporate debt which was on very favorable terms because of the government cash flow for military contracts. The other part came from investors who invested into Boeing because of growing stock prices due to military contracts.
Every zero-sum adversarial system would be a lot more efficient if they accepted the judgement of a third party instead. How much energy could we save if we dismantled the court system, elections, and pro sports?
I think DAG coins could be a lot more efficient, but I'm not totally solid intellectually on how they achieve consensus on conflicting spends so I'm not sure it will work as a general solution. The only one I've used, nano, has I believe no mining reward, and I think consensus is achieved based on a voting process weighted by proof-of-stake among online nodes -- the incentive for participating in the system is that the system has value for you in other ways. I'm not closely following ETH PoS research, but it will be interesting to see what they can accomplish, it could create a huge reduction in energy consumption.
> Every zero-sum adversarial system would be a lot more efficient if they accepted the judgement of a third party instead. How much energy could we save if we dismantled the court system, elections, and pro sports?
None, since players would devote their energy to influencing or becoming the third party instead of playing these games.
DAG coins just distribute the mining work across the entire network including edge nodes. That's not necessarily more efficient but it is more decentralized. Of course it remains to be seen if DAG systems can be robust against attack. I'm familiar with several attacks against DAG-type cryptocurrencies that don't seem to have really good answers.
I'd be really interested if anyone has a book or similar on supply and demand curves estimation by experiment. Ideally I'm looking for a cookbook type book less so than a theory book.
If you're referring to financial markets, I personally learned a lot from Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practitioners, although I didn't finish it. But it explains the basic characteristics of financial markets, and why they are set up the way they are. It isn't necessarily going to be obvious and financial markets are based on hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge.
Ok, I doubt I'll ever take an hour to listen to this, but I really enjoyed the book. It was very interesting to see the little particularities of the legal system and the participants that had a big impact. I basically read it straight through in one shot as the host said he did as well. I found the writing to be florid at times (there was a seamless segue between an anecdote of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon and Hulk Hogan's decision to sue against the distribution of the hidden camera sextape that made me actually laugh out loud) but I found the asides were unobtrusive enough that it didn't affect the reading.
Yeah, in the interview with Holiday, he muses whether it might be good for a handful of billionaires to conspire to destroy public education in America, including planting stories about the evils of schools and teachers in the press[0]. Seems like a real stand-up guy...
[0] 40:52 for anyone interested. I’m not exaggerating, this is pretty much verbatim.
> Yeah, in the interview with Holiday, he muses whether it might be good for a handful of billionaires to conspire to destroy public education in America, including planting stories about the evils of schools and teachers in the press
Yes, he proposes a thought experiment, and them points out how it sounds interesting from an ends getting something accomplished point of view, but also specifically says he recognizes that if he were on the other side he might find it a lot more suspect, and questions (as in actually questions) whether this approach, which is the whole thing being discusses, as it's what Thiel did, is something we should support or not.
So yes, a pretty stand up guy that's willing to note that even if something works for an outcome that he supports the method about which it's achieved might be suspect and we should examine it much closer before supporting it wholeheartedly. What more do you want?
He tosses in a couple of asides about how if you were on the receiving end of this atrocious idea, you might not like it so much, but your characterization is far too generous for something radically awful that he’s floating as a “thought experiment.”
And of course it’s not just a “thought experiment,” it’s something that right-wingers are doing across the country to aggregately awful and racist results (go look up the track record of Betsy DeVos’ charter school empire). It’s the same kind of dubious “just asking questions” nonsense these guys pull all the time.
> but your characterization is far too generous for something radically awful that he’s floating as a “thought experiment.”
He's floating it as a thought experiment to bring up the question of whether a tactic like this, for whatever goal, should be considered good or bad, given that it relies on secrecy. His thoughts are that government should get out of education. He's not actually saying he thinks peopls should go about it this way, he's raising the question of should we be okay with a tactic like this? The extremity of the argument is to make you think critically about it.
The entire conversation is couched in this context. I'm not sure why you refuse to consider it in this one exchange.
> And of course it’s not just a “thought experiment,”...
So you think the person that's calling it out as possibly something people should be wary of or at least examine very closely because of all the possible unintended consequences (which is a point they both spend quite some time elaborating on) is the person that should be viewed negatively? It's not just that something was said, it's how it was said, why it was said, and the larger context. To me it feels like you're missing that.
I’m not missing anything. He says specifically that he’s “often wondered” about this specific idea, goes into detail about how, if it were to happen, it should be enacted by the wealthy in secret to prevent any opposition, and proceeds to reveal himself favorable to a whole host of other fundamentally anti-democratic ideas (as well as not really push back against Holiday doing more of the same).
Yes, these kind of people are exactly the kind of people one should be wary of.
I like the book Information Rules by Shapiro and Varian as a review of these kinds of concepts in general. I don't think it is necessary to even view these topics as strategy, to a certain extent it is just the nature of the incentives and there will be a tendency for things to work out along these lines. Here is a snapshot of the table of contents, from this it should be pretty clear if it is interesting to you: https://imgur.com/a/2yU6OpA
Agreed, the book does a solid review of the underlying principles.
They gave an example of how Intel used their AGP standard as part of their commoditize your complement tactic except they characterized it as maximizing the value of your technology (p. 197-198):
"In choosing between openness and control, remember that your ultimate goal is to maximize the value of your technology, not your control over it."
Thanks, not OP but that looks useful to me. For context, I've used the strategy in OP to debug a small linux system running on an SD card, if I have one version that has a bug and one that doesn't, and I don't know the difference, I can image them both, mount them and diff the whole system (i.e. with meld.) And it can be done with the same card over time. I'd like to figure out how to do this with VM disks as well but I've never had a pressing need.
I commonly use loopdevs to create and partition bootable disk images for clonezilla. I like that I can create them sparse so that they take up less space.
I like the way Ben Horowitz puts it in his good pm, bad pm document:
Good product managers focus the team on revenue and customers. Bad product managers focus team on how many features Microsoft is building. Good product managers define good products that can be executed with a strong effort. Bad product managers define good products that can’t be executed or let engineering build whatever they want (i.e. solve the hardest problem).
As an engineer, I want to find the demons that are out there in the problem space and assault them, I want to eliminate all weakness from my precious software. But from the business POV I know we need to provide value to customers quickly and efficiently with the available resources, which is usually not the same thing.
Sometimes I lay in bed at night thinking about the deficiency I haven't had time to address or that isn't a current priority, or the obscure bug I found a while ago that is laying in wait ... then I end up taking a melatonin capsule because my brain won't stop trying to plan/reorganize my next few tasks to squeeze in enough time to solve these issues.
