This is an incredibly silly thing to say. If someone makes a knife that is terrible at carving wood or cutting food but is the perfect shape for, say, clitorectomies... then maybe that tool is bad and we should probably stop making it.
Yes, people choose to make it and people choose to use it. But, like... stop those people, right?
This hypothetical knife that you've invented still doesn't make any choices. A person still makes the choice of how and when to use it. That's all that matters. Only things that can choose to act can be judged as ethical or unethical.
Morality requires agency and conscious agreement. A machine/device doesn't choose to be made or operated nor can it act against its maker/operator any more than rocks can act against the Earth. Regardless of motive, a moral conclusion can't be reached about the object.
I never listened to the podcast, but I see where you're coming from and thanks for doing it anyway.
Twenty years ago I was in university and had a Debian install on a cheap-ass Acer laptop and I managed to get exactly two and a half games working under Wine: the first two Fallouts and about three hours of Civ IV before crash. Getting games to run at all was A THING so a podcast for that makes a lot of sense.
Today I have a full-time job and deleted the Windows partition from my expensive PC about three years ago... pretty much every game I've ever wanted to play since then has just WORKED. Better than on modern Windows, even. Not a lot to talk about there, I guess.
One thing I wish is that Valve could publish a 'Proton spec' that people could build against to ensure compatibility, but I imagine that that this would be an IP nightmare.
In the terminology of the article - which I enjoyed and recommend that you read when you get time - these friends of yours are not 'poor', they are 'broke'.
article says broke for temporary, these people poor 10-20 years. that doesnt sounds like temporary. they get government or familiy support, and rarely work short term here and there.
Now assume there were no such regulations and factor in the time it takes to actually plan, build, and commission a new power station and associated grid infrastructure. I'm not sure that your distinction matters in any real way.
>time it takes to actually plan, build, and commission.
This is, currently, mostly regulatory. Yes, in the absence of any regulations at all it would still take time to plan, build, and commission, and I am not advocating for literally no regulations, but solar and wind plants could probably be spun up in well under a year under a dramatically reduced regulatory burden, almost certainly faster than a new Datacenter can be built. They are, after all, dramatically simpler installations.
And that's not even thinking about the fact that in this alternate reality we are imagining, power plants would have been being continually built for decades, and the new demand would be a much smaller drop in the much larger bucket.
So I think that in an alternate regulatory regime both A) yes actually power plants could built ~ as fast as data centers and other large power consumers and B) we would have so much more power that increases in demand would be less of a shock to the system.
"And that's not even thinking about the fact that in this alternate reality we are imagining, power plants would have been being continually built for decades"
That would only be true if you could forecast the demand to justify the cost of the new infrastructure. It seems the demand from AI was beyond forecasts. The policies doesnt make the plants impossible to build, just slower. So your argument about continuously building plants is true in our current reality, and those plans include the extra time to comply with policies.
> And that's not even thinking about the fact that in this alternate reality we are imagining, power plants would have been being continually built for decades, and the new demand would be a much smaller drop in the much larger bucket.
Bullshit. Why would they have continuously built power plants if the demand wasn't there? The utterly insane level AI datacenter demand came out of nowhere.
And then you know, when there are tradeoffs, you can always maximize X and the expense of Y. And if you're myopically looking only at X, that may seem like a smart move, but that tradeoff may not be the right tradeoff when you look at things holistically.
And there are other tradeoffs: maybe not deregulate power-plant construction, but instead regulate AI data-center construction to slow it down. If we're in an AI bubble, that may end up being the right call and eliminate a lot of FOMO waste.
> but instead regulate AI data-center construction to slow it down.
The simplest and most logical regulation: don't connect new data centers to the grid unless they pay the cost and interest for the power capacity they commit to use - it's not hard to do the accounting for that and it's the fair way to do it for any large new consumers.
I think their goto is "Russiagate" but that's because the refuse to acknowledge the facts that Mueller did have evidence but assumed that Congress would act upon it.
There is some (though in my opinion not much) merit to how right-wingers portray the "Russiagate" thing. The Russian government absolutely did try to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to help Trump and hurt Clinton, via hacking and releasing emails and via social media influence campaigns, but there was a chunk of the left that from the start seemed to firmly believe Trump was some kind of literal espionage agent of Putin.
While it's difficult to deny Trump was a de facto asset of Putin in many ways, a surprising number of people were almost entering right-wing conspiracy theory territory with their epistemological practices regarding Trump's personal involvement with Putin.
Right-wing conspiracism is orders of magnitude worse and more frequent than left-wing conspiracism, but some people were way too willing to believe some of the more radical Russian collusion speculation despite no evidence.
I'm not the grandfather commenter, I'm very much a leftist, but left, right, there's too many whose emotions or tribalism override their logic and make them deny what they see/come up with dumbass theories.
For a left example, there are people who theorize that the guy who missed putting a bullet in Trump's brain must've been a false flag operator. Although it must be mentioned that "leftie" conspiracy theories are mostly just on social media, while "right" ones end up being broadcast by congresspeople and senators, probably because they know their side will take them at face value..
There is something about an argument made almost entirely out of metaphors that amuses me to the point of not being able to take it seriously, even if I actually agree with it.
This, as a few other commenters have mentioned, is a terrible article.
For a start, the article does not mention any other database. I don't know how you can say something is read or write heavy without comparing it to something else. It doesn't even compare different queries on the same database. Like, they just wrote a query and it does a lot of reads - so what? There's nothing here. Am I going mad? Why does this article exist?
A little context may be of help. Maybe a better headline for the article would have been, "How Can You Determine if your PostgreSQL Instance's Workload is Read-Heavy or Write-Heavy?"
It's useful to know to help optimize settings and hardware for your workload as well as to nkow whether an index might be useful or not. Most major DBMSs will have some way to answer this question, the article is aimed at PostgreSQL only.
Not directly related to this new Atuin feature, but I need to vent:
Last week I was trying to `find` something in some directories, failed, `cd`d to my home directory and instinctively hit up-arrow+return to run the search again. At some time prior to this, Atuin had stopped recording new entries without my notice. Want to guess the last entry that Atuin did record?
Go on. Guess.
Yep.
`rm -rf *`
In my home directory.
Luckily I have backups of everything important and didn't actually lose anything, and I'm mainly posting this here as a funny anecdote. But - still - after getting myself set up again I have yet to reinstall Atuin.
Now, I think you could do #5 or #6 (and add `mv` and `dd` as well, but where does the list end?), but I think #1 (using the absolute path) is the easiest to avoid the worst PEBCAK.
"Destructiveness" property is undecidable in general. If you ban rm from history, you'll just get false sense of security before you accidentally run some "aws bla bla drop production cluster"
Behavior of any system should be just one of:
1. Fully determinate
2. Have enough latency before confirmation (for example, block input for 1 second after displaying a command)
This should apply to history, any fuzzy searching, autocomplete etc
Technically it’s possible to run each command in some restricted cgroup for example, and ask for elevated permissions if anything more is required. But that would require quite some rethinking on how the whole shell is supposed to work.
No it is not a reasonable fix to this issue. You can't classify a command whether it's destructive or not. It depends on a lot of context. The classification logic needs to run every time you invoke a command. It needs to gather all the context to make a decision, every time you run a command. It's going to slow everything down. People will have different opinions on what is destructive, leading to endless debates. We don't need to run logic just to recall a history entry. Stop.
I’m now running openbsd on my laptop, and I’ve yet to enable history save to file. And to date, I’ve not missed it. Anything that should be saved across sessions can be an alias, a function, a script, or a snippet in some notes.
Since atuin is a feature enhanced shell history replacement maybe you should look into its features that you could have used to prevent this. Like not allowing destructive commands with wildcards in memory.
the age-old trick for some of this is when running something you don't want in history, put a bunch of spaces before it.
It requires you to think about that when doing it ... but, well... I dunno. I really don't ever write `rm -rf *` even in that state of mind. That's like the most evil command one can type into a machine! Who knows what it will do!
Yes, people choose to make it and people choose to use it. But, like... stop those people, right?