Isn't that just called us-east-1?

I've read this multiple times that AWS us-east-1 region is the one that has the highest number of outages. I am eager to hear others' experiences here.

People are just projecting their own cognitive biases.

As Werner has said before everything fails all the time, so you need to design your system/architecture to accept that constant. US-east-1 is by far the largest of the regions, and at that scale you can probably assume that at any given point in time there is hardware in there failing that needs to be physically replaced. As a result it's the region most well equipped to tolerate that level of constant failure (it's got 6 AZs!). It's also the the most popular of the regions, is typically one of the launch regions for new services, and runs a bunch of critical Amazon infra too. If anything it holds a special place in terms of importance for AWS to keep it up because the impact of a widespread problem here is amplified. For the same reason though any problem here is much more visible across the entire internet. Which is why the handful of outages are so memorable to people.

us-east-1 is the zone with highest load and most new services are tested there first.

rumor has it, some of the older hardware is moved there and that's why prices are a little cheaper but I have not been able to confirm that.

Not so much older hardware is moved there as it's just the oldest region with the most baggage

It’s not that the oldest hardware is moved there, it’s just that the oldest hardware was there to begin with. There are probably still first-generation EC2 instances running in us-east-1 on their original platforms.

I had discovered this recently too and asked a relevant StackOverflow question about how people deal with lots of I/O.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/4160...

The premise is the imperative shell can become pretty riddled with decisions if your application contains a lot of I/O.

Some like the "Free Monad" solution, but I found that too be too coupling.

This is interesting and doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't learn good form just by playing a good opponent.

I think you can. Especially when you can browse the tree which is similar to asking your teacher "what if" questions.

Many players I know learned how to play pretty well on 9x9 by playing a computer program.

I'd argue you can even learn much faster playing a program, because for high level players many sequences were based purely on memorization (including point values) but now seeing different results quickly you can understand it better.

And the level where your play is based on high level abstractions like influence and group strength is not that hard to reach and it wouldn't take much to reason them out just from the games.

I think the proper statement is that it's possible, but not efficient. Learning go from a go-program seems much like learning assembly from gcc.

People I know that went studying go to Asia had output from their teachers likely worse than you get from the program given the language barrier and general approach. It was about playing games with strong players (playing different styles, which I admit may teach a bit more than Alpha) and having teacher to point you which of your moves were bad and what to do instead (and that's it, only seeing some sequences and hearing "good", "bad"). Because knowing how and when you lost the game is huge. And doing shitloads of go problems of course.

That said, it still may be worth having a teacher/trainer I guess. To motivate you, give you that dopamine in person and all that jazz.

I would say it's more like learning to code yourself rather than at the university than learning assembly from gcc.

The article addresses this. Unfortunately the "teachers" were being paid mostly just to be strong opponents for the "students". So AI ruins their market.

From the article: "the Go school recruits a professional player, who would agree to play a fixed number of games, like five games, one per week, at a certain price.... Of course there is still room for lower level classes and teaching, but pros are often better at playing teaching games than explaining easy concepts."

This is funny having come from a Google TLD.

Can we add minimum password complexity requirements to this list? There is nothing more annoying than having to adjust my already 128-bits of entropy password because the website feels I need a special character. Plus, now hackers have a guide for what the password looks like.

NIST 800-63b actually recommends against character class requirements[1] in favor of minimum length requirement and blacklists of breached passwords and other obvious passwords. Sites that require special characters are not following the current best practice.

[1]: https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html

Isn‘t any obvious password already in the list of breached passwords? ;)

This is a common misconception.

> No more so than the wastefulness of mining gold out of the ground, melting it down and shaping it into bars, and then putting it back underground again. Not to mention the building of big fancy buildings, the waste of energy printing and minting all the various fiat currencies, the transportation thereof in armored cars by no less than two security guards for each who could probably be doing something more productive, etc.

> As far as mediums of exchange go, Bitcoin is actually quite economical of resources, compared to others.

This is completely false in terms of what you get per transaction.

that website is loaded with pixels in the css

Do what I say, not what I do. j/k. That's a tumblr theme, I didn't write it and I take no responsibility for it.