Perhaps somebody claims that 18 of your servers can go away, but if they're part of your company's core competency you'll save more money by not taking the time to listen to people that want to tell you how to run (differently!) your core services!
Jr Devs are not going to have a strong sense of the scale of different business considerations like that, so they'll blather on and on about their favorite shit in total isolation to the business decisions that would have to back up actually doing it. You'll know when they're gaining the right experience to be listened to when they can temper their own enthusiasm by listing the counter arguments to their proposed change; unprompted.
Like in the example here; managing configuration vs managing containers gives very different results depending on how much code replication you have. If you only have 1 copy of each service and no overlap, then the advantages from containers can't be higher than the advantages of configuration management. But you can still have all the disadvantages.
If you know you won't need features, you don't want to increase complexity; complexity has costs, including hidden ones. OTOH if you know you'll need features in the future, you can reduce design complexity by starting with a complex enough design to get you all the way to the end. This is because if you start with too simple a system, you might get stuck with the simple way as legacy features, but still have to tack on the more complex features. Getting this right is important, and not easy, and it requires experience; mostly it requires experience of being the Jr. Fanboi and thinking your idea would be better, and then later realizing, "oh that would have actually sucked here." If you let that Jr Fanboi just do it their own way, they won't gain the same experience, they'll just eventually graduate to Sr. Fanboi and be totally useless other than as a sales engineer for whatever they're a fan of.
If youâ(TM)re not taking time to experiment and find what will work for your company, then you are destined to fall behind and lose to a startup who will do it faster and cheaper because they donâ(TM)t have the legacy technical debt to deal with.
I'd rather have some moron on the internet decide that I'm "falling behind" than to experiment with finding the problem that some new tech solves.
If I'm not facing a problem, I didn't experiment with solutions.
If I'm facing a new problem, then I'll evaluate potential solutions, including whatever new shit there was two years ago. Sorry, if it just came out last year I'm not even evaluating it when it might solve my problem! Why? Experience!
Splenda is brand of sucralose, it is absolutely sugar, there is no question about that at all. It also has the same calorie content as other carbohydrates.
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories
You left out the part where building codes normally cover normal buildings, and often the tallest buildings in a city are taller than the code "allows" because special cases, including the biggest buildings, are expected to require a variance anyways.
The code in my city says buildings can only be 40', but a quick drive around town says that there is not actually a prohibition of buildings over 40', simply an additional process.
Yeah, if you want to build a wooden skyscraper there is going to be more to the process than just getting some random engineer to sign the papers, which is what a normal building requires. Instead you're going to have to convince some government engineers that your engineer is really good, and you'll have to pay to have it triple-checked by others.
Regarding your strange claims regarding suitability, see: Correlation does not equal causation. Also note that not every community even has a negative history regarding wood buildings and fire fatality statistics.
Aluminum and vinyl siding are things because they're cheaper than wood.
If they were better, they'd either be more expensive, or wood siding would have been discontinued.
Also, consider this: in a tall building, the siding is not the structural support. So the subject isn't even about the siding. This building could have vinyl siding and the story would be the same story about a wooden building.
Also, you don't have to paint the wood for protection. There is also technology that places the protective chemicals inside the wood, instead of heaping it on top. Then you don't reapply protection, ever.
Carpenter bees are not a legit threat to wooden structures. Compare: Carpenter ant.
57m from that link is the length of the main building. The width is 50m. Judging from the picture that makes it ~25m tall. That is consistent with a statue height of 14.98m and the interior pictures which show the ceiling only a little taller than the statue.
It is true that the site originally had 2 pagodas of ~100m height.
First of all, that story is from 2017. It isn't news.
Second, from the story, "The latest problems were discovered with shipments of more than 11,000 tons of steel, copper, and aluminum products made by Kobe Steel and its affiliates in Japan, China, Malaysia and Thailand."
So the actual true claim closest to the lie you told would be, "Being owned by a Japanese company doesn't magically cause product inspections to happen."
They're one of the world's biggest steel company, so 11k tons isn't actually very much.
No reports of problems at this point, only of faked test data. So some steel plants in "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" didn't do the testing for some of the products. This doesn't mean that there was a quality problem, only that there was a quality control problem. The people running the factory probably saw a long history of passing the quality tests, and decided to save some money and not do them. That's bad, especially if the parent company doesn't detect it and correct the problem.
But the story seems to really be that because Japan is so good at quality control, they discovered the faked test data even before it resulted in undetected problems in actual product quality.
It is already well known in the world that if you product comes from "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" that there might be variations in quality. Duh. I think people understand that whenever a product came from "Country A, Country B, Country C, or Country D." Duh. Does that mean that Country A had a bad reputation? No. No it does not.
Right, and it is as if a coffee shop said, "Well, we're mostly a donut shop" and somebody said, "oh noes! identity crisis!" or if a donut shop said, "We're mostly a coffee shop," and somebody said, "Oh noes! Identity crisis!"
Of course, slashdot editors don't care that "identity crisis" doesn't mean, "admitted to being more than one thing," and it also doesn't mean, "said 5 words that were different than last years talking points."
The key feature of an identity crisis, without which you can't possibly be having an identity crisis, is that you're having a crisis of some sort. Some random schmuck on the internet noticing you used different words today than you did two years ago? Not a crisis.
They said if I bought a used 8088, my computer would run "too slow" to do anything, but I still did stuff.
They said if I bought a 386SX, my computer would run "too slow," but it didn't.
They said if I bought Cyrix, my computer would run "too slow," but GCC didn't care and neither did I.
They said if I bought AMD, my computer would run "too slow," but I had long stopped listening and just kept using the tool.
The truth is that most of what I use my computer for I could be doing on a microcontroller if it was all I had. But I don't have to, because even old personal computers are easily fast enough to do it all; at low load!
The harm is that when the user accidentally grants explicit access for some malware to run on their computer, now it can be 15% more naughty. That's bad, but pinning it on Intel is going to be hard, even if it is actually a bug. But it might not even be a bug, it might be a misfeature that the whole industry misunderstood. And it might not be a misfeature in the CPUs, but in many of the Operating Systems, who foolishly trusted things that were only assumed to be true, but had not actually been promised.
The lawyers are just hoping that when it is clear the cases are weak, that Intel offers them a settlement of some legal fees to make it go away faster. Obviously the "plaintiffs" won't see trial, I doubt they'll see even a token settlement amount.
None of these are class actions yet, whenever you see a story in the media that claims "some number of class actions suits were filed" you should know without looking at the details that it is not true as claimed.
You have to file an individual claim, with an individual cause of action. That is the thing that you "file" with the help of your lawyer. Then you ask the court to Certify a Class of plaintiffs that have been harmed in the same way. If the Court says yes, they will then rule on what the class actually is. So all of that happens after you've already filed the suit! Changing from a regular lawsuit into a class action suit happens during the case, not prior to it. So when you see the reporting getting that word wrong, and claiming the class action was "filed" then you know the reporter either doesn't understand what they're reporting, or more likely they reported some untrue drivel because they didn't think their readers could understand the actual events.
The news you'll see when it actually happened is, "Class certified in Foo lawsuit." Now that means that there is actually a class action.
If you're going to file your own case, talk to a lawyer about doing it now before any class gets certified. Don't wait.
Not that you're likely to have a case, or any injury on which to base one, however...
I got $27 last year from a class action because some shady "collection agency" called my cell phone a bunch of times trying to collect on an invalid "debt."
The reason that you'd be lucky to get $3 is that Intel didn't promise that their chips could output some number of math answers per second in a secure way, they only sold you a CPU that does all the instructions they promised it does.
Numerous combinations of CPU instructions might turn out to not do what you wanted them to do, if you wanted a different thing than what they physically do! That has nothing even to do with Intel. These aren't even bugs, these are misfeatures! And you won't find promises about these features in the EULA, so you probably weren't misled in any way.
If speculative instructions are a misfeature, that is a mistake made together by the industry and the consumer, not a mistake made by "Intel."
The government didn't actually "try to implement" anything. They wrote the algorithm, and then they tried to persuade manufacturers to build it into devices, which nobody was willing to do.
Some people in government did promote the chip.
The idea that "the government tried to implement this" is stupid and ignores the history. The government debated if they should try to implement it, and the answer that won that debate was no which means that the government more accurately refused than tried.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what your hand said!
Red Cross spends about 10% on management, 90% on humanitarian services and programs.
Goodwill isn't one organization, and isn't purely even a nonprofit. They call themselves a "Social Enterprise" instead.
Wiki used to be about facts and nothing more.
Wikipedia has never been about facts, that is just faulty original research promoting faulty original research.
Wikipedia is, and always has been, about being encyclopedic .
You want to "increase participation"? Fire all the editors and start fresh.
What does that involve, exactly? Deleting the "names" associated with the AIs, and assigning new ones, or is it enough to just reset the data files?
Perhaps somebody claims that 18 of your servers can go away, but if they're part of your company's core competency you'll save more money by not taking the time to listen to people that want to tell you how to run (differently!) your core services!
Jr Devs are not going to have a strong sense of the scale of different business considerations like that, so they'll blather on and on about their favorite shit in total isolation to the business decisions that would have to back up actually doing it. You'll know when they're gaining the right experience to be listened to when they can temper their own enthusiasm by listing the counter arguments to their proposed change; unprompted.
Like in the example here; managing configuration vs managing containers gives very different results depending on how much code replication you have. If you only have 1 copy of each service and no overlap, then the advantages from containers can't be higher than the advantages of configuration management. But you can still have all the disadvantages.
If you know you won't need features, you don't want to increase complexity; complexity has costs, including hidden ones. OTOH if you know you'll need features in the future, you can reduce design complexity by starting with a complex enough design to get you all the way to the end. This is because if you start with too simple a system, you might get stuck with the simple way as legacy features, but still have to tack on the more complex features. Getting this right is important, and not easy, and it requires experience; mostly it requires experience of being the Jr. Fanboi and thinking your idea would be better, and then later realizing, "oh that would have actually sucked here." If you let that Jr Fanboi just do it their own way, they won't gain the same experience, they'll just eventually graduate to Sr. Fanboi and be totally useless other than as a sales engineer for whatever they're a fan of.
If youâ(TM)re not taking time to experiment and find what will work for your company, then you are destined to fall behind and lose to a startup who will do it faster and cheaper because they donâ(TM)t have the legacy technical debt to deal with.
I'd rather have some moron on the internet decide that I'm "falling behind" than to experiment with finding the problem that some new tech solves.
If I'm not facing a problem, I didn't experiment with solutions.
If I'm facing a new problem, then I'll evaluate potential solutions, including whatever new shit there was two years ago. Sorry, if it just came out last year I'm not even evaluating it when it might solve my problem! Why? Experience!
Partially, but it would probably fall down if you took out all the hydrogen.
Splenda is brand of sucralose, it is absolutely sugar, there is no question about that at all. It also has the same calorie content as other carbohydrates.
Where I am, building code prohibits wood for buildings over 4 stories
You left out the part where building codes normally cover normal buildings, and often the tallest buildings in a city are taller than the code "allows" because special cases, including the biggest buildings, are expected to require a variance anyways.
The code in my city says buildings can only be 40', but a quick drive around town says that there is not actually a prohibition of buildings over 40', simply an additional process.
Yeah, if you want to build a wooden skyscraper there is going to be more to the process than just getting some random engineer to sign the papers, which is what a normal building requires. Instead you're going to have to convince some government engineers that your engineer is really good, and you'll have to pay to have it triple-checked by others.
Regarding your strange claims regarding suitability, see: Correlation does not equal causation. Also note that not every community even has a negative history regarding wood buildings and fire fatality statistics.
Aluminum and vinyl siding are things because they're cheaper than wood.
If they were better, they'd either be more expensive, or wood siding would have been discontinued.
Also, consider this: in a tall building, the siding is not the structural support. So the subject isn't even about the siding. This building could have vinyl siding and the story would be the same story about a wooden building.
Also, you don't have to paint the wood for protection. There is also technology that places the protective chemicals inside the wood, instead of heaping it on top. Then you don't reapply protection, ever.
Carpenter bees are not a legit threat to wooden structures. Compare: Carpenter ant.
57m from that link is the length of the main building. The width is 50m. Judging from the picture that makes it ~25m tall. That is consistent with a statue height of 14.98m and the interior pictures which show the ceiling only a little taller than the statue.
It is true that the site originally had 2 pagodas of ~100m height.
Kyodaina shakunetsu no farosu
If you ever manage to afford internet access, just fire up google maps and set it to satellite view and click on Japan. Lots of trees.
Also if you think the last of the rainforest is being chopped down, just click on South America and check.
Somehow I think we found the guy who can't imagine trees. ;)
The US mostly stopped processing lumber in the 1990s, but we still cut just as much.
Where does Japan get their lumber? From the US.
First of all, that story is from 2017. It isn't news.
Second, from the story, "The latest problems were discovered with shipments of more than 11,000 tons of steel, copper, and aluminum products made by Kobe Steel and its affiliates in Japan, China, Malaysia and Thailand."
So the actual true claim closest to the lie you told would be, "Being owned by a Japanese company doesn't magically cause product inspections to happen."
They're one of the world's biggest steel company, so 11k tons isn't actually very much.
No reports of problems at this point, only of faked test data. So some steel plants in "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" didn't do the testing for some of the products. This doesn't mean that there was a quality problem, only that there was a quality control problem. The people running the factory probably saw a long history of passing the quality tests, and decided to save some money and not do them. That's bad, especially if the parent company doesn't detect it and correct the problem.
But the story seems to really be that because Japan is so good at quality control, they discovered the faked test data even before it resulted in undetected problems in actual product quality.
It is already well known in the world that if you product comes from "Japan, China, Malaysia, or Thailand" that there might be variations in quality. Duh. I think people understand that whenever a product came from "Country A, Country B, Country C, or Country D." Duh. Does that mean that Country A had a bad reputation? No. No it does not.
Right, and it is as if a coffee shop said, "Well, we're mostly a donut shop" and somebody said, "oh noes! identity crisis!" or if a donut shop said, "We're mostly a coffee shop," and somebody said, "Oh noes! Identity crisis!"
Of course, slashdot editors don't care that "identity crisis" doesn't mean, "admitted to being more than one thing," and it also doesn't mean, "said 5 words that were different than last years talking points."
The key feature of an identity crisis, without which you can't possibly be having an identity crisis, is that you're having a crisis of some sort. Some random schmuck on the internet noticing you used different words today than you did two years ago? Not a crisis.
Do you have a different definition of "tried" than that you used yourself?
No, thanks, I'll stick with dictionaries for word definitions.
Also, over 50% of your facts are manufactured, and would be corrected just by the wikipedia article linked above.
We were promised perfection by Intel..
No, we were promised secure hardware, you obtuse douche-nozzle.
No, you were promised hardware, dill weed.
And it was delivered.
They said if I bought a used 8088, my computer would run "too slow" to do anything, but I still did stuff.
They said if I bought a 386SX, my computer would run "too slow," but it didn't.
They said if I bought Cyrix, my computer would run "too slow," but GCC didn't care and neither did I.
They said if I bought AMD, my computer would run "too slow," but I had long stopped listening and just kept using the tool.
The truth is that most of what I use my computer for I could be doing on a microcontroller if it was all I had. But I don't have to, because even old personal computers are easily fast enough to do it all; at low load!
Exactly this.
The harm is that when the user accidentally grants explicit access for some malware to run on their computer, now it can be 15% more naughty. That's bad, but pinning it on Intel is going to be hard, even if it is actually a bug. But it might not even be a bug, it might be a misfeature that the whole industry misunderstood. And it might not be a misfeature in the CPUs, but in many of the Operating Systems, who foolishly trusted things that were only assumed to be true, but had not actually been promised.
The lawyers are just hoping that when it is clear the cases are weak, that Intel offers them a settlement of some legal fees to make it go away faster. Obviously the "plaintiffs" won't see trial, I doubt they'll see even a token settlement amount.
None of these are class actions yet, whenever you see a story in the media that claims "some number of class actions suits were filed" you should know without looking at the details that it is not true as claimed.
You have to file an individual claim, with an individual cause of action. That is the thing that you "file" with the help of your lawyer. Then you ask the court to Certify a Class of plaintiffs that have been harmed in the same way. If the Court says yes, they will then rule on what the class actually is. So all of that happens after you've already filed the suit! Changing from a regular lawsuit into a class action suit happens during the case, not prior to it. So when you see the reporting getting that word wrong, and claiming the class action was "filed" then you know the reporter either doesn't understand what they're reporting, or more likely they reported some untrue drivel because they didn't think their readers could understand the actual events.
The news you'll see when it actually happened is, "Class certified in Foo lawsuit." Now that means that there is actually a class action.
If you're going to file your own case, talk to a lawyer about doing it now before any class gets certified. Don't wait.
Not that you're likely to have a case, or any injury on which to base one, however...
I got $27 last year from a class action because some shady "collection agency" called my cell phone a bunch of times trying to collect on an invalid "debt."
The reason that you'd be lucky to get $3 is that Intel didn't promise that their chips could output some number of math answers per second in a secure way, they only sold you a CPU that does all the instructions they promised it does.
Numerous combinations of CPU instructions might turn out to not do what you wanted them to do, if you wanted a different thing than what they physically do! That has nothing even to do with Intel. These aren't even bugs, these are misfeatures! And you won't find promises about these features in the EULA, so you probably weren't misled in any way.
If speculative instructions are a misfeature, that is a mistake made together by the industry and the consumer, not a mistake made by "Intel."
What I love is the asshole phrase "found that as much came from industrial and household products."
So the real story is that industrial air pollution overtook automobile air pollution in LA?
Thanks for the horse shit pie, Beau.
You might want to read the article you linked.
The government didn't actually "try to implement" anything. They wrote the algorithm, and then they tried to persuade manufacturers to build it into devices, which nobody was willing to do.
Some people in government did promote the chip.
The idea that "the government tried to implement this" is stupid and ignores the history. The government debated if they should try to implement it, and the answer that won that debate was no which means that the government more accurately refused than tried.
Sounds like you're consuming too much Newsvertainment to me. Put down the newsletter, turn of the AM radio, and maybe get some fresh air?