> As an aside... Because one node didn't start, and my Proxmox cluster has only two nodes, it can't reach quorum, meaning I can't really make any changes to my other node, and I can't start any containers that are stopped.
I've recently added another Zigbee dongle, that supports Thread, and it happens to share same VID:PID combo as the old dongle, so due to how these were mapped into guest OS, all my light switches stopped working. I had to fix the issue fast.
Lesson in here somewhere. Something about about a toaster representing the local intelligence maxima?
Yes, but then I'm going to have to manually go around my house and turn off all the lights when I leave the house and when I come back I have to turn them on manually instead of them just turning on when I open the door to a room.
Also my AC/heating automatically turns off when I leave the house and turns on when I come back, my lights automatically dim/change to a warmer temperature in the evening as it gets closer to bed time, my desktop goes to sleep when I leave the house, my TV automatically turns on when I power on the living room media PC, etc. etc.
For even n>2 you define a tie breaker node in advance and only the partition connected to that node can make a quorum at 50%. For n=2 going from no quorum to quorum requires both nodes but losing a node doesn't lose quorum, and when you lose a node you stop, shoot the other node, and continue. For split brain the fastest draw wins the shootout.
proxmox even makes it easy by letting you run something like a raspberry pi as an additional quorum member if you dont have enough hardware for a 3rd node
At least I was laughing at the Cloudflare oopsie, since all my light switches (et al) are all local. Unlike those people with a fancy smart bed that went into a W shape because it couldn't talk to AWS.
There's a lot of nonsense at every level. Especially when dealing with heterogenous infrastructure.
Some NICs support http. Some NICs support tftp. Some NICs have enough memory for a big iPXE, other NICs don't. Some BMC systems make next-boot-to-lan easy, but not all.
We almost always use iPXE in order to normalize our pxe environment before OS kickstart. There's a lot to it and quite a lot of little things that can go wrong. Oh, and every bit of it becomes critical infra.
A rule of thumb among your friends: those who don’t talk politics are the conservative ones. Similarly, I’d wager most of the examples here without overtly progressive stickers are conservative.
Depends on where you live. Around me the conservatives are more than willing to offer their political opinions even when the context doesn't fit. Progressive/Liberal folks tend to be less vocal because we already know where we stand with each other and don't want to invite the loudmouth to go off.
That seems like the general mantra that's currently being adapted to justify all sorts of power grabs and expansions of surveillance all over the world. "We would really rather not do this, honestly! But the crisis is just too pressing, and has been left unaddressed for too long. You all just couldn't behave, and now we're going to have to do it the painful way. This is just what is needed, it's the natural outcome."
But surely, it's not the entire world that's suddenly experiencing these waves of perceived crises, right? The statistics to justify tough-on-crime enforcement are useful for the proponents, but it's not the statistics that prompted them to act. They have their own reasons, and some marketable justifications just happened to be lying around. If they weren't there, they would find some other numbers or some other category of criminals that must be urgently pursued, anything to justify the power grabs. Reducing crime won't stop them.
makes sense… like NYPD has 11 billion dollar budget and NYC is the safest place on the planet Earth, we just need the same model in the entire USA and we good. Local/State taxes should be raised to something reasonable like 25-30% - it is public safety after all :)
It hasnt been ignored or denied. What's happening is some people's minds are detaching from reality, and it's our duty to snap them out of their delusion.
The reality, which might I remind everyone does not care about their opinion, is this: crime has been trending down for decades. Police budgets have been increasing for decades. Many police departments are over funded.
I think actually for relatively small n we get cases where mathematics says nope, you can't decide that, the machine goes recursive and so now your decider may be looking at a machine which is itself running deciders and Kurt Gödel says "No".
Thanks for the hint to go looking some more. I found that Johannes Riebel has proven that BB(748) is undecidable. So for even small k there may not be deciders for them.
The suspicion is that this happens maybe as early as BB(15). We just can't prove that whereas we can prove BB(745) is not decidable, and, of course, we've decided BB(5) as we see here.
Scooping the Loop Snooper
(an elementary proof of the undecidability of the halting problem)
No program can say what another will do.
Now, I won't just assert that, I'll prove it to you:
I will prove that although you might work til you drop,
you can't predict whether a program will stop.
Imagine we have a procedure called P
that will snoop in the source code of programs to see
there aren't infinite loops that go round and around;
and P prints the word "Fine!" if no looping is found.
You feed in your code, and the input it needs,
and then P takes them both and it studies and reads
and computes whether things will all end as the should
(as opposed to going loopy the way that they could).
Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be,
because if you wrote it and gave it to me,
I could use it to set up a logical bind
that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.
Here's the trick I would use - and it's simple to do.
I'd define a procedure - we'll name the thing Q -
that would take and program and call P (of course!)
to tell if it looped, by reading the source;
And if so, Q would simply print "Loop!" and then stop;
but if no, Q would go right back to the top,
and start off again, looping endlessly back,
til the universe dies and is frozen and black.
And this program called Q wouldn't stay on the shelf;
I would run it, and (fiendishly) feed it itself.
What behaviour results when I do this with Q?
When it reads its own source, just what will it do?
If P warns of loops, Q will print "Loop!" and quit;
yet P is supposed to speak truly of it.
So if Q's going to quit, then P should say, "Fine!" -
which will make Q go back to its very first line!
No matter what P would have done, Q will scoop it:
Q uses P's output to make P look stupid.
If P gets things right then it lies in its tooth;
and if it speaks falsely, it's telling the truth!
I've created a paradox, neat as can be -
and simply by using your putative P.
When you assumed P you stepped into a snare;
Your assumptions have led you right into my lair.
So, how to escape from this logical mess?
I don't have to tell you; I'm sure you can guess.
By reductio, there cannot possibly be
a procedure that acts like the mythical P.
You can never discover mechanical means
for predicting the acts of computing machines.
It's something that cannot be done. So we users
must find our own bugs; our computers are losers!
by Geoffrey K. Pullum
Stevenson College
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
From Mathematics Magazine, October 2000, pp 319-320.
In principle, analysts could could analyze all machines of size K or less, classifying many of them as being halting or not, and all the rest could in fact be non-halting, but the analyst would never (at any finite time) know for sure whether they are all non-halting.
This is proven. It's known as the halting problem and is the central pillar of computational complexity theory. The proof was invented by Alan Turing and is online.
I suspect that in the very near future, the latter will dramatically decrease and the former dramatically increase. I wonder how that tradeoff will be perceived.
As surveillance increases the definition of crime will expand.
Consider the incentives. Surveillance is costly. The only way to justify increasing surveillance costs is to demonstrate increasing intervention in criminal activity. If traditional crime is reduced, new crimes need to be introduced.
Once all the enemies of the state have been eliminated, it becomes mandatory to introduce new enemies of the state so they, too, can be rounded up. Eventually there will be no one left to come for and the surveillance technology will go unmonitored.
You may very well be right about the outcome, though I doubt the government cares enough about justifying expenditures to make money the rationale.
In my experience, it's social crises that tend to be used to justify authoritarian power grabs - whether that's a political killing or a worldwide contagion.
Maybe. If we use our powers too capriciously then they'll deter behaviors other than criminal behaviors. Like that boat of alleged drug traffickers we recently blew up -- that looks more likely to discourage boating within 1000 miles of the US than any particular crime.
Yeah, figured that making it hard to parse would make it more likely people were thoughtful about their replies. In this climate, it's likely to attract a flamewar if I just spell it out.
The increase in crime is purely political problem emerging from the demands of a certain segment of middle and upper middle classes, not the government or working class.
Seems like it's been common knowledge for a while that the critic reviews are useless, but the audience reviews are still valuable. You just have to make sure to actually look at the audience score.
I completely lost faith in Rotten Tomatoes after consistently seeing Marvel capeshit, including their worst slop, reliably get high audience and critical scores.
If you want to stay near the bleeding edge with this stuff, you probably want to be on some kind of linux (or lacking that, Mac). Windows is where stuff just trickles down to eventually.
you're not wrong; i really should try just running linux and seeing how good the steam gaming layer is these days. And if SDR# runs on linux under wine or whatever.
Lesson in here somewhere. Something about about a toaster representing the local intelligence maxima?