"The beauty of this scheme is that a node only has to know about its share of the interval"
The article doesn't explain curve changes in much detail, but I assume it increases the portion of the curve "owned" by the node.
With unique identifiers all a node needs to know its identifier. So that can't be what's interesting about these interval portions.
Also:
- How that curve is initially drawn isn't clear at all. Is it flat and becomes complex over time by forking (+ data modification)?
- Why are interval boundaries real-value in a system that cannot actually express real numbers?
- How are the intervals / portions decided? Is that simpler than generating UUIDs?
- How does comparison work?
"Comparison works similarly to Version Vectors: if the curve of a stamp is above the other one, it descends it, otherwise the curves intersect and the stamps are concurrent."
But now you have events with curves and intervals where one event might miss a portion. It's not immediately clear what happens in that comparison. It's maybe obvious to some readers but clearly not an audience that needed introduction for the other things initially explained by the article.
In terms of conclusions:
My understanding is that the main benefit is that the overall complexity of the "vector" becomes simpler in light of actor explosion due to the merging mechanism. Whereas UUIDs (or even monotonous index indexed vectors) would grow indefinitely, making tracking them on events a challenge.
This intro article fails to make this stuff clear.
It's interesting that the idea mail mentions that nothing changes about the implementation (including order) but the memory layout. Which would imply insertion order was already preserved in older versions (not the case IIRC) or the idea underwent a few more changes that did in fact impact order.
EDIT: I couldn't quite find an answer but https://softwaremaniacs.org/blog/2020/02/05/dicts-ordered/ mentions the behavior happens since then because the implementation only tracks indices in the hash table itself and relies on maintaining entries separately in a second array that gets expanded in insertion order.
This would also seem straightforward but it raises a few questions such as how deletion is implemented (efficiently).
EDIT2: Okay, the talk (https://youtu.be/p33CVV29OG8) mentions they just leave holes until the next resize (at around 42:00).
Raymond also mentions there that his original idea didn't preserve ordering but happened due to an additional compacting optimization? Should probably watch the whole thing some time to get the history. Sounds like a fun talk.
In the log replication example, after healing the partition the uncommitted log changes in the minority group are rolled back and the leader's log is used.
However it's not clear how that log is transmitted. Until this point only heartbeats via append entry were discussed, so it's not clear if the followers pull that information from the leader somehow via a different mechanism, or whether it's the leader's responsibility to detect followers that are left behind and replay everything. That would seem rather error prone and a lot of coordination effort. So how's it actually done?
Fair that perhaps they (the director specifically) thought that (they look like something nobody would want to wear) about Crocs. Heck, I thought that back then, many did. So perhaps that's why Snopes is saying it's true.
But Crocs had actually become somewhat popular already before Idiocracy.
The more realistic full picture explanation being that they chose something that they or someone on their staff, like many "look at those idiots" types (myself at the time included), already knew and considered a stupid trend is much more likely. It doesn't at all negate that they in fact thought nobody with taste would wear those shoes, but I don't think that choice was entirely made in isolation not aware of the trend.
The effect of watching the movie and seeing Crocs worn was yet another of those pieces of evidence that the stupid people of today connect to that fictional future world, like all the other stuff on the movie dialed all the way to the top (energy drinks, corporate sponsorships, etc.)
The mere fact that someone knew of Crocs, thought of them, and chose them because of their ugliness, means they were popular/successful enough to pop up on someone's radar, despite them ostensibly not being something that would be worn by anyone. Perhaps they didn't know how much more popular Crocs would become but they for sure must have picked them as an artifact of things already going in a weird direction (Why can you get this? Who would want this? Someone must, these will be the stupid people of tomorrow.)
But also, actually, so what?
Look at some of the fashion of past decades older movies. Some of it is cool but a lot of it is super ridiculous.
And if you look at Crocs, are they really objectively stupid? Treating them as a high fashion item probably is. But they are versatile and robust, good for many types of use cases were people used to wear other types of cheap plastic sandals. People wearing leather shoes surely thought sneaker were stupid until they became so mainstream that they were evaluated more objectively.
Citing idiocracy and Crocs seems like a very weak argument to your case and even Idiocracy's point (fashion choices don't indicate the world is getting stupid). Mind you I'm not disagreeing that things have gotten worse in many ways and social media is definitely not helping. OTOH, Facebook actually was somewhat reasonable for a long time, and useful to connect with people. Only once the Twitterification of it started did it get so bad. But somehow Twitter never gets the bad reputation.
Just to confirm: Are you suggesting engineers working during work hours on an alert should get paid double? Or only outside work hours?
I'm not sure we're all on the same page here but let me give you an example of how on-call essentially works on my team.
- Week long rotations spread out across the year among members.
- On-call means holding a pager but also taking in any non-urgent requests that can be handled within a reasonable time. New feature requests are out of scope, answering a bug report from support is in scope, including a fix if that's possible.
- Responding to paging alerts only at night. On some teams we did have sister teams in other regions to cover with their on-call over some portion of the night.
- Generally, paging alerts are rare enough (once or twice a week) so out of work hours disruption is fairly low.
- Non-urgent breakages, bug reports, etc. are fairly common though.
Someone has to handle all that so it's a rotation. I don't think providing incentives to engineers to take more on-call is practical. Unless you are okay with them stagnating in their career. And it's the EM asking here so I'd hope they didn't want that.
I'm by no means important in my org but when something appears like a shitty idea I will raise that (like other ICs around me) and more often than not it works out fine. I'll agree to give something a shot but if it doesn't work it doesn't work and my managers so far have all realized that a bit into the trial period.
Reading comments like yours, I guess I should value my work environment more.
Quotas are legal in many states. Granted the author is likely based in CA. Still, let's keep away from absolutes.
FWIW I also don't support discrimination in whichever direction. However, so far the story is "there was some kind of
quota delaying my promotion". Is that really news or surprising?
I guess it is surprising someone just stated it to them directly but this whole thing isn't particularly juicy yet.
Saying they have a quota doesn't mean "because you are white".
I mean, it has a similar effect but it's not like we don't know quotas exist and are largely tolerated, are they not? Are quotas outright illegal in the US?
Do we know it was a racial quota? Now, gender quota would still not be better for the author but this is still lacking in novelty.
> I mean you mention anime characters, but there's a big greaser / rockabilly subculture in Japan.
There isn't, though.
There are probably a dozen or so in Tokyo and about the same number in Osaka. Granted, I don't have an exact number but it is super niche. If you ask a random Japanese person the chances of them even being aware of that subculture is very low.
> This is normal human behaviour. While I also think it's a little strange, it's harmless. Let people have things.
No, it's not. Some of your examples are but going all in isn't normal
even if we ignore the fact that being part of a subculture kind of isn't normal by definition. If it were normal we wouldn't get an article about it from the BBC, would we? But what I rather mean is, doing that as a dress up thing or LARPing is reasonable. Using some old items or wearing old fashion for their unique appeal is also reasonable. Putting anachronism above all else isn't normal, though. Those Japanese greasers use mobile phones.
Arguably, we don't know how much of what the article describes is tongue in cheek, and perhaps it's mostly a character the guy is playing. But if not, hating to or avoiding to use modern technology because it's not from the era you happen to like (because of your grandpa's POW diaries, another can of worms right there) is quite off.
I'm not saying he shouldn't enjoy what he's doing or "become like the rest if us" but no, really, it's not normal (and maybe that's okay).
Facebook is being overrun with low effort memes and repetitive video content (literally being shown the same crap in regular intervals either reposted or from the same source). I make an effort to hide and block each time I see another video dominating my timeline but alas, it doesn't get better.
It's not even ads. I don't mind the ads actually. They seem to be the only sane content in comparison aside of course the occasional but rare real content shared by my friends.
I just want to keep all this crap off my timeline please. Show me more ads if you want, but stop with the TikTok like reposts with AI generated drivel overlayed or some "reaction": "What did you think of this brave lad? We think he's great, leave a comment." Next: 5 minutes craft video.
Current capacity might not be referring to actual current point in time provisioned capacity but an estimate of how much the overall infra can handle over the next few days.
No idea but ultimately this is marketing. If you wanna say we are just using as much as we need that's impressive to engineers but would it require or warrant a dedicated widget there that hovers around some sort of fixed utilization ratio?
Saying "look we are processing this much but could easily handle more" you are impressing a larger group. So my guess it's more about that.
Websites or apps backed by a sheet or some other minimalist setup are fairly common. What's noteworthy about the submission is that the website is a sheet, not a layer to render info from one.
If you think that an engineer is replaceable, why isn't the rest of the early employees? Or do you mean that only founders should get any equity?
I'm not quite sure what your comparison does. If you build a company fundamentally built on the work of good drivers or cleaners, yeah perhaps you should give them equity.
If you just contract that work out once in a while for a company that doesn't have these jobs at its core, then probably don't.
But also, most drivers, cleaners, and (to a lesser degree) repairman can be more easily replaced. The former two in particular don't require any special skills normal people don't already have to possess. And where skills come into play, we're still not looking at 4+ years of college required type of skills. Hence, there's not as much supply of engineers as there is for repairmen. And the roles you describe do not fundamentally create anything. Engineers, in particular early engineers in a startup actually design, construct, operate, and maintain 80% of what is actually generating value. Other roles supporting them also deserve a piece of the pie but questioning why engineers should get equity at all and someone having an idea and the funds to kickstart a company should get all seems odd.
"The beauty of this scheme is that a node only has to know about its share of the interval"
The article doesn't explain curve changes in much detail, but I assume it increases the portion of the curve "owned" by the node.
With unique identifiers all a node needs to know its identifier. So that can't be what's interesting about these interval portions.
Also:
- How that curve is initially drawn isn't clear at all. Is it flat and becomes complex over time by forking (+ data modification)?
- Why are interval boundaries real-value in a system that cannot actually express real numbers?
- How are the intervals / portions decided? Is that simpler than generating UUIDs?
- How does comparison work?
"Comparison works similarly to Version Vectors: if the curve of a stamp is above the other one, it descends it, otherwise the curves intersect and the stamps are concurrent."
But now you have events with curves and intervals where one event might miss a portion. It's not immediately clear what happens in that comparison. It's maybe obvious to some readers but clearly not an audience that needed introduction for the other things initially explained by the article.
In terms of conclusions:
My understanding is that the main benefit is that the overall complexity of the "vector" becomes simpler in light of actor explosion due to the merging mechanism. Whereas UUIDs (or even monotonous index indexed vectors) would grow indefinitely, making tracking them on events a challenge.
This intro article fails to make this stuff clear.