>No, we wouldn't magically have developed modern computer-controlled battery packs of lithium ion batteries in 1920 if we just wanted it hard enough.
That's not what the commenter said. Don't put your interpretation of the words into theirs.
It is very feasible that the investment of 100-some-odd years of battery research and a marked non-future invested as deeply into oil and gas as we have now would have rendered our entire world vastly different. This is not a claim that the future would have happened sooner, but rather the events that unfolded and the research would have been different.
You can't be a one man band, but if the organisation supports it, you can achieve both. In my experience, it doesn't need to be a trade off. We can get close to the users and program to your hearts content. We need the right company and environment to want to invest in that for us. There's a great loop we can get into by doing things like offering demos of new features to clients weekly or bi-weekly. What I've seen happen is that we don't need to code as much because we know the specific problems that need to be solved, rather than loads of guesswork and trying to write blanket solutions for misunderstood problems.
If that's the route you want to go, prepare to spend more than half of your time not coding.
I personally think this is the future, and the myth of the introverted software developer who comes up for air to say 5 words in a standup is well past its expiration date, but a lot of people cling to that pretty strongly, so I expect people will prefer to code in dysfunctional teams that aren't well connected to their users for years to come.
Can you explain any of the technical details around this perchance? I'm super curious. I know that SO_REUSEPORT[1] exists but is that the only little trick to make this work? From what I've read with SO_REUSEPORT it can open up that port to hijacking by rogue processes, so is that fine to rely on?
You don't even need that. If the old server process exec()s the new one, it can pass on its file descriptors -- including the listening socket -- when that happens.
If an attacker is already running rogue processes on your box, the minor details surrounding SO_REUSEPORT is the least of your worries. An attacker could just restart nginx, and won't care about lost requests.
>it can open up that port to hijacking by rogue processes
That seems relevant if the process is using a non-privileged port that's >= 1024. If we're talking about privileged ports (<= 1023), though, only another root process could hijack that, and those can already hijack you many other ways.
poked around a bit of that from a previous job, here's what I remember:
1. there's a control process and worker processes
2. on upgrade, control process launches new worker processes from the new binary
3. requests are drained from old worker processes
4. most of the time nginx request handlers allocate from a per-request allocation pool, so requests mostly don't share memory
5. for the cases where there are global states, there's a separate shared memory pool that you need to allocate from (which is kind of hard to work if you are not using built-in nginx primitives)
This article doesn't add up the points to anything that solves for the given problem. Owning identity isn't solved by saying "don't trust ${third party}! Come trust ${my preferred third party}, it's better!" Any blockchain is still a third party that all parties involved with need to place trust in. It isn't somehow more or less trustworthy just because it exists.
> Many people, including myself, believe that the individual should be able to own their own identity.
Yes, this is nice wishful thinking, but on a global scale it's not really possible or feasible.
> OAuth2 should be used for what it was intended to, which is for a web service to provide another web service with a user’s data given that user’s consent. It should not be used as a global digital identifier because that’s too important to be owned by anyone but the individual themselves.
So, instead of OAuth being in the hands of FAANG[1] it's in the hands of ${blockchain-of-the-year}? How does moving the trust from a centralized company to a centralized blockchain change MY ownership? If I move everything away from FAANG to someone's blockchain, I have no assurance that chain will continue existing. If there's a flaw found in it and everyone moves to another chain, now what? Sure, we can make the same claim about FAANG not continuing to exist, but the point is there's no inherent advantage here, they're equal. FAANG are supported by millions of individuals and companies that are all, together invested in their success. There's no unilateral agreement on blockchains and I doubt there ever will be.
>With social recovery, instead of having to trust Google, you can choose who you trust, and instead trust a given set of friends, family, and services.
Again with the trust this and not that. All of my friends, family and other services need to then agree that they're all going to trust ${chain} instead of FAANG. It doesn't fix the problem. "the blockchain" isn't just one thing. Who's chain do we all shift trust to and from and based on what security? At least with Google I can rely on their security because if they end up with a breach of trust it's going to have a massive, real impact on share prices and consumer trust around the globe. That's incentive enough for me to rely on it day-to-day.
This article has some interesting tidbits but overall seems like just a baseless rally against FAANG by someone who knows very little about complex authentication or trust and security in the real world.
A properly decentralized blockchain isn't a third party in the traditional sense, a human or organization that is bound to follow its agreements until it doesn't feel like it anymore. It's an algorithm incarnated.
That said, its initial and continued existence is dependent on economics. Who will market a service that they don't stand to profit from? Who will drive large organizations to invest in infrastructure that doesn't improve their profits? Either no one will, or it will be adulterated in the process. Sadly the community spirit that drove a lot of early internet development seems to be lost.
I don't mind the article, but one of the main points links a study from 2017 on school safety. Schools have become less safe since 2017. Since 2017, school shootings in the USA have skyrocketed [1].
I don't think it's a problem. It's another symptom of the min/maxing culture this article is taking aim at. There's a culture shift that's taken place in the last few years which says no one's allowed to complain unless they have a better solution. Seen it rearing it's head more recently in very rigid ways. From my observations, it kills creativity in it's tracks and instead of making everyone carefully consider what they complain about and solve problems better, it quashes anyone's ambition to say anything for fear of becoming a target. I've seen the targeting happen in such childish ways too. "If YOU think it's so shit, then YOU fix it."
Sounds like you need to use the reflog more often. git reflog keeps track of all changed references (branch tips, etc) being changed in your repository. You can effectively check back out into any state you want, whenever you want.
I've always looked at it this way as well. Echoing some other commenters here, I don't understand why he's polarizing. I haven't heard he himself present a lot of polarizing views on things. His guests on the other hand, some are absolutely off the charts in terms of how polar their views are.
The reason his podcast is popular is because his guests are almost always interesting and contrary to a LOT of media in our era, he lets them speak. I think the viewpoint that somehow there's a cult of Joe Rogan followers who listen in only to hear Joe's POV on things is really tonedeaf.
He is polarizing because some people think he is perpetuating what to them is “wrong think”, sadly that notion comes primarily form the more left leaning people in society, the amount of times I’ve heard him described as Alt-Right and thinking really?
What Joe reminds me is of is the era of old school broadcasting where you had giants like Mike Wallace who were willing to interview pretty much anyone of note.
And while Joe’s format is pretty much free form rather than researched guided interview it’s very different than what you have on the media today where you have essentially people form only one side of the spectrum or worse the BBC style of “balance” where on each subject they’ll get the two biggest loons they can find to balance eachother out.
IDGAF that Alex Jones was on his show I didn’t watch that episode because he doesn’t interest me, just like I didn’t watch the episodes with Abby Martin who’s pretty much the left wing version of Jones.
I don't disagree that they're a major contributor to Linux itself, however RHEL usage is plummeting over the last 5 years as stated in the article. Being a contributor and owning RHEL is really no advantage at this point.
Redhat profits were growing for 4 years steadily 15-20% for each of last four years. I dont see the confirmation of redhat usage declining, more like very perspective and growing company.
Are you saying that from your perspective or what you think IBM's is? It's the latter that determines their actions. I'm guessing at it for sure. I just don't think you see it their way given difference in your statement and what they paid.
That's not what the commenter said. Don't put your interpretation of the words into theirs.
It is very feasible that the investment of 100-some-odd years of battery research and a marked non-future invested as deeply into oil and gas as we have now would have rendered our entire world vastly different. This is not a claim that the future would have happened sooner, but rather the events that unfolded and the research would have been different.