It's not a terrible idea, but it takes effort and some time to get a solid and reliable implementation. The part where you do that first, before deploying them in production, seems to have been skipped with Linux. I'd trust Solaris or Illumos Zones, because they've been around for years and have had a lot of testing. IBM WPARs are probably also fine, if you can afford AIX (not that I can). But the bundle of duct tape and bailing wire that Docker has used to cobble together containers on Linux, which changes significantly with every release, leaves me less confident.
I can see that in a tech company, but in most companies AWS tends to be handled by the IT departments, too, because most of the company is non-technical. And in that case, it's pretty anecdotal, but I haven't seen AWS result in any kind of a hit to IT staffing. It does shuffle it around, but it also creates a big pile of new stuff that has to be done. You have fewer people managing physical infrastructure, and instead have a veritable army of DevOps people shepherding all your instances around, building and updating Docker containers, writing and maintaining Ansible scripts, rewriting all your systems so they can handle AZ outages and failover properly, etc., etc.
Since he was talking about the poor record of "the left" regarding open societies, I assumed it was a reference to something like the USSR. The American left is obviously mainly open-society, ACLU type people, not Stalinists.
Yeah, the right instead is pushing for "parental advisory" warnings, obscenity bans, book bans, mandatory internet filters, and that kind of thing.
Classical liberals, at least in the USA, have no significant political power. The two parties are: 1) Republicans, a coalition of social conservatives and businessmen, and 2) Democrats, a coalition of labor and social liberals.
It also doesn't make a ton of sense from the left, at least if you're consistently on the left, since the tendency to over-criminalization through broad federal laws isn't exactly having great progressive effects on society.
I wonder if just the mismatch between teaching and testing methods accounts for some of the difference. If the test is paper-and-pencil, you might expect students who were taught using pen-and-pencil methods to do better than those taught mainly using computer-based methods, even if the two worked just as well, because the first group of students are more used to doing the work in the same setting as the test will use.
We also had a space shuttle then, which as long as it was going to be flying periodically anyway, was basically a sunk cost, so might as well use it to perform the repair. Now, with no space shuttle, robot repair doesn't have a lot of competitors.
Mobile benchmarks would be interesting, but at the moment very few people are actively choosing a mobile browser anyway. Almost everyone ends up using the platform default (e.g. Safari on iOS).
Some of that is interaction with the graphics stack, which varies by OS and can be exacerbated by how the browser handles the DOM. Updates to the DOM that don't cause repaints or other visible changes are much less problematic for performance than those that do.
Ah yeah I forgot about the open-borders part, which clearly doesn't fit mainstream conservatism. I don't think they support that one for leftist reasons, though, more for the usual reasons that businesspeople support it: cheap labor, dislike of mandatory systems like E-Verify, etc. They're on board with the lobbying for more H1Bs, too.
Yeah, the organization has been increasingly revenue-focused lately, which explains how this could happen. The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit, so Murdoch can't force them to sell. It's not near bankruptcy, either, so this isn't a distressed forced sale. Why would they sell a 127-year-old magazine with a respected brand, when their charitable mission is to promote the progress of science and inform the public? It seems the answer is that the current board of the National Geographic Society isn't content with its current size, but wants to make it a mega-sized nonprofit. To do that, they need more money, and this is one way of getting more money.
As far as I can tell, the arrangement will give them a share of the revenue. So they've basically licensed the magazine "brand" in return for a cut of the profits.
I don't think this is really good stewardship of the organization, personally. They're a non-profit that is supposed to serve the public interest, and maintaining a non-profit magazine to inform the public is an important part of that. But if their goal is just to maximize money they have for grants, sure, it'll probably do that.
The WSJ editorial pages have always been right-wing, even kind of angry cultural right-wing (not business-conservative, as you might expect from the title). But the news pages used to be strongly firewalled from the editorial, which I think is the main thing that's changed.
Representatives from parliament will now negotiate with the European Council, made up of representatives from member states, on a final version of the regulation.
This makes it sound like a done deal, but it's closer to a situation where one house of the U.S. Congress has passed a law, and the other hasn't. It might pass, or might not, depending on what the other one thinks about it.
The way European politics works, moves like this require the agreement of both the European Parliament and the European Council. The European Parliament is directly elected, with representation roughly proportional to population, and its votes are a normal majority vote, like in most legislatures. The European Council is a body representing the governments of each country directly, and uses "qualified majority voting", which is a majority vote of countries (one vote per country) but with supermajority requirements on how many people those countries represent. Specifically, to pass the European Council, a proposal needs all three of: 1) a majority of countries in favor, 2) countries representing at least 74% of "voting weights" in favor (roughly proportional to population but with small countries over-weighted), and 3) countries representing at least 62% of the EU population in favor (a straight population weighting). In practice what this means is that at least 15/28 of the EU members have to support it, and the 15 in the majority have to include most of the large countries.
Yeah the amount of disability depends in part on how much you paid into the system. It's based on a formula including number of years worked prior to becoming disabled, and how much income you had in each of those years. Somewhat similar to Social Security. So if you became disabled young, or had a low-paying job, you get a small disability benefit.
Yes, I have an uncle with MS who's on disability, and he can't even pay his rent with it. He gets $600/mo, and rents a cheap apartment in a shitty part of Los Angeles for about $550/mo. He can only buy food and pay for his medical co-pays because we send him money.
Relevant to this thread, in Denmark the oil and gas production does belong to the state, through a hilariously named state enterprise called DONG Energy. But it's true that many other things are privately owned. Maersk, for example, is not owned by the state, but the other way around.
That's exactly the point of this, isn't it? The article says (bold added): "The new sensor can predict, before transplantation, which donated lungs will malfunction."
According to the article, the previous tests took too long, so by the time test results came back, the lung would no longer be viable to transplant. This one can get results faster, so surgeons can wait around 30 minutes before deciding whether to go ahead with the transplant or not.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a terrible idea, but it takes effort and some time to get a solid and reliable implementation. The part where you do that first, before deploying them in production, seems to have been skipped with Linux. I'd trust Solaris or Illumos Zones, because they've been around for years and have had a lot of testing. IBM WPARs are probably also fine, if you can afford AIX (not that I can). But the bundle of duct tape and bailing wire that Docker has used to cobble together containers on Linux, which changes significantly with every release, leaves me less confident.
Surprisingly, it turns out that sending humans to Mars is somewhat difficult. :)
I can see that in a tech company, but in most companies AWS tends to be handled by the IT departments, too, because most of the company is non-technical. And in that case, it's pretty anecdotal, but I haven't seen AWS result in any kind of a hit to IT staffing. It does shuffle it around, but it also creates a big pile of new stuff that has to be done. You have fewer people managing physical infrastructure, and instead have a veritable army of DevOps people shepherding all your instances around, building and updating Docker containers, writing and maintaining Ansible scripts, rewriting all your systems so they can handle AZ outages and failover properly, etc., etc.
I'm Fucking NOBODY, and I'm glad to have your vote, citizen. Together we can put America on an upward trajectory!
Since he was talking about the poor record of "the left" regarding open societies, I assumed it was a reference to something like the USSR. The American left is obviously mainly open-society, ACLU type people, not Stalinists.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "the left". Scandinavian-style social democracy is pretty open, USSR-style Leninism not so much.
Yeah, the right instead is pushing for "parental advisory" warnings, obscenity bans, book bans, mandatory internet filters, and that kind of thing.
Classical liberals, at least in the USA, have no significant political power. The two parties are: 1) Republicans, a coalition of social conservatives and businessmen, and 2) Democrats, a coalition of labor and social liberals.
It also doesn't make a ton of sense from the left, at least if you're consistently on the left, since the tendency to over-criminalization through broad federal laws isn't exactly having great progressive effects on society.
Most climate-change models don't actually predict that all humans will be killed.
I wonder if just the mismatch between teaching and testing methods accounts for some of the difference. If the test is paper-and-pencil, you might expect students who were taught using pen-and-pencil methods to do better than those taught mainly using computer-based methods, even if the two worked just as well, because the first group of students are more used to doing the work in the same setting as the test will use.
We also had a space shuttle then, which as long as it was going to be flying periodically anyway, was basically a sunk cost, so might as well use it to perform the repair. Now, with no space shuttle, robot repair doesn't have a lot of competitors.
Mobile benchmarks would be interesting, but at the moment very few people are actively choosing a mobile browser anyway. Almost everyone ends up using the platform default (e.g. Safari on iOS).
Some of that is interaction with the graphics stack, which varies by OS and can be exacerbated by how the browser handles the DOM. Updates to the DOM that don't cause repaints or other visible changes are much less problematic for performance than those that do.
Ah yeah I forgot about the open-borders part, which clearly doesn't fit mainstream conservatism. I don't think they support that one for leftist reasons, though, more for the usual reasons that businesspeople support it: cheap labor, dislike of mandatory systems like E-Verify, etc. They're on board with the lobbying for more H1Bs, too.
Yeah, the organization has been increasingly revenue-focused lately, which explains how this could happen. The National Geographic Society is a nonprofit, so Murdoch can't force them to sell. It's not near bankruptcy, either, so this isn't a distressed forced sale. Why would they sell a 127-year-old magazine with a respected brand, when their charitable mission is to promote the progress of science and inform the public? It seems the answer is that the current board of the National Geographic Society isn't content with its current size, but wants to make it a mega-sized nonprofit. To do that, they need more money, and this is one way of getting more money.
As far as I can tell, the arrangement will give them a share of the revenue. So they've basically licensed the magazine "brand" in return for a cut of the profits.
I don't think this is really good stewardship of the organization, personally. They're a non-profit that is supposed to serve the public interest, and maintaining a non-profit magazine to inform the public is an important part of that. But if their goal is just to maximize money they have for grants, sure, it'll probably do that.
The WSJ editorial pages have always been right-wing, even kind of angry cultural right-wing (not business-conservative, as you might expect from the title). But the news pages used to be strongly firewalled from the editorial, which I think is the main thing that's changed.
Yes, deforestation produces net carbon production. But that's best measured by including a contribution for deforestation, which most models do.
Representatives from parliament will now negotiate with the European Council, made up of representatives from member states, on a final version of the regulation.
This makes it sound like a done deal, but it's closer to a situation where one house of the U.S. Congress has passed a law, and the other hasn't. It might pass, or might not, depending on what the other one thinks about it.
The way European politics works, moves like this require the agreement of both the European Parliament and the European Council. The European Parliament is directly elected, with representation roughly proportional to population, and its votes are a normal majority vote, like in most legislatures. The European Council is a body representing the governments of each country directly, and uses "qualified majority voting", which is a majority vote of countries (one vote per country) but with supermajority requirements on how many people those countries represent. Specifically, to pass the European Council, a proposal needs all three of: 1) a majority of countries in favor, 2) countries representing at least 74% of "voting weights" in favor (roughly proportional to population but with small countries over-weighted), and 3) countries representing at least 62% of the EU population in favor (a straight population weighting). In practice what this means is that at least 15/28 of the EU members have to support it, and the 15 in the majority have to include most of the large countries.
Yeah the amount of disability depends in part on how much you paid into the system. It's based on a formula including number of years worked prior to becoming disabled, and how much income you had in each of those years. Somewhat similar to Social Security. So if you became disabled young, or had a low-paying job, you get a small disability benefit.
Some of the revenues in Norway are used to pay for a comprehensive welfare system. The rest goes into a sovereign-wealth fund to save for the future.
Yes, I have an uncle with MS who's on disability, and he can't even pay his rent with it. He gets $600/mo, and rents a cheap apartment in a shitty part of Los Angeles for about $550/mo. He can only buy food and pay for his medical co-pays because we send him money.
Relevant to this thread, in Denmark the oil and gas production does belong to the state, through a hilariously named state enterprise called DONG Energy. But it's true that many other things are privately owned. Maersk, for example, is not owned by the state, but the other way around.
There's quite a bit of writing about this, generally termed the hygiene hypothesis. Some is based on good research, some not.
That's exactly the point of this, isn't it? The article says (bold added): "The new sensor can predict, before transplantation, which donated lungs will malfunction."
According to the article, the previous tests took too long, so by the time test results came back, the lung would no longer be viable to transplant. This one can get results faster, so surgeons can wait around 30 minutes before deciding whether to go ahead with the transplant or not.