There’s a bit of a duality about perfect agreement within the voters for the party’s candidates and somewhat within the party membership itself. Yeah, there’s a lot of telling each other to piss off. There’s a lot of jockeying for the platform and the primaries. But come the general, it’s a minority of the voters who will sit it out or vote for a minor party. Sometimes it’s a large enough minority to hand things to the Republicans, though.
Specifically, the US federal government. Just like most Americans don’t hate the people of Russia or Iran any more than the folks the next town over, I’ve never met someone from Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, or pretty much anywhere else who hates all Americans. I’m sure they exist, but probably as a small minority. There’s plenty of reason to hate our government though, especially if it has threatened to destroy your entire civilization.
I don't know about the percentage of the population, but everyone who leaves Iran and learns English (or German) is much less likely to be a fan of the Iranian regime than those who never left Iran in the first place, so you'll definitely have a sampling bias.
Yeah, buy Americans are not target of Russian aggression and violence. Russia is kinda abstract ennemy far away. Feelings get stronger when the country is actual target of bombing.
Growing up in the Southern US, I met plenty "Let's bomb all the savages in the Middle Easy and take their oil" types. Some of them grew up to be self-proclaimed Nazis.
Richard Brand says the most important thing to grow a successful business is to put your employees above all else. Being the place where everyone wants to work and cares about their job is the way to get the most loyal customers. Having the most loyal customers is how you make the most money over the long term.
Survivorship bias exists, but look at all the Virgin brands and at places like Google. So for a moment let’s posit he’s correct.
So, then, the problem would seem not to be capitalism generally. It would be the sort of short-term quarterly goals capitalism we see so often in recent years.
There is not just a lower barrier to entry. The best use of a tool will still be made by the most knowledgeable users. So we’re looking at lowering the bar some, but another big deal is the scale at which the top experts can work. That might actually be the longer lever. Imagine a top expert burning tokens across whole repo histories of a few dozen projects looking for likely but unconfirmed flaws, then having the model flag and rank those suspects for their own review in triaged order.
I was in the industry when key lengths for SSL were different between US domestic and US products for export. That’s one reason so much Open Source cryptography software expertise built up in Europe so quickly.
It’s not explaining any deep technical details. Think of it as a gentle introduction to the idea for someone to explain why they might want to read the paper, before reading the paper.
If the article was intended to be an intro to "Raft" algorithm I would've agreed with your sentiment. But this is what the article starts with:
Understanding Raft can be tough. In fact, I’ve seen conversations recently on social media in which actual technical leaders of infrastructure companies demonstrate a lack of understanding (!). Point being, you’re not alone.
Anyway I now notice that the article was written in 2023, probably I'm being too pedantic.
I think the point being made (I’m not the author after all) is not that they are misunderstanding how Raft achieves consensus, but what it means in the first place when we speak of it doing so and why that’s useful. By “technical leaders” here, one might think of CTOs, directors, and senior managers over technical teams rather than senior ICs.
EPYC chips have multiple levels of NUMA - one across CCDs on the one chip, and another between chips in different motherboard sockets. As a user under Linux you can treat it as if it was simple SMP, but you’ll get quite a bit less performance.
Home PCs don’t do NUMA as much anymore because of the number of cores and threads you can get on one core complex. The technology certainly still exists and is still relevant.
I understand Judoscale is a customer with apprehensions and is asking for clarity. That will definitely raise anxiety.
However, Heroku said they were changing focus. It’s entirely possible to change focus away from something and still do some of it. A focus on things other than new features doesn’t mean, necessarily, no new features at all. Heroku could probably save their customers and partners a lot of anxiety by being clearer and more explicit what they mean.
Rx580 is on there, but not the R9 290. I’m not sure where the Rx500 series actually pushed technology forward. They always seemed like the AMD budget line. And if 580 is important, why not the 590 or the 570?
Few of the “pre-GPU” graphics accelerators that seem to have mattered are here. The ViRGE. The Mach32 and Mach64. The Trident cards, like the TGUI9440. Yet the Voodoo often isn’t considered a GPU and is on the list.
The 590x was great and lasted me around 5-6 years until I picked up a replacement, but it was really just a rebadged 580.
The 580 is a solid card that was an excellent price/performance value and held a respectable spot in the market for a very long time. Many video games now use is as the entry level bar for playability.
It doesn't hold the same "type" of spot, but it's a workhorse in the same way something like a NVIDIA 1070 was.
reply