> I just care whether or not the ideas are good and clear
That's the thing. It actually really matters whether the ideas presented are coming from a coworker, or the ideas are coming from LLM.
I've seem way too many scenarios where I'm asking a coworker, if we should do X or Y, and all I get is a useless wall of spewed text, with a complete disregard to the project and circumstances on hand. I need YOUR input, from YOUR head right now. If I could ask Copilot I'd do that myself, thanks.
I would argue that's just your coworker giving you a bad answer. If you prompt a chatbot with the right business context, look at what it spits out, and layer in your judgement before you hit send, then it's fine if the AI typed it out.
If they answer your question with irrelevant context, then that's the problem, not that it was AI
Same here. Confluence web editor has a thousand options but no option to comfortably edit text. I always write the entire document in Neovim and then format it later (or never, in case of yet another "please explain this thing only you know but we will ignore this page and call you anyway when it breaks").
I don't think it does. AWS has this feature under RDS Proxy, but it's an extra service and comes with extra cost (and a bit cumbersome to use in my opinion, it should have been designed as a checkbox, not an entire separate thing to maintain).
Although, it technically has "load balancer", in form of a DNS entry that resolves to a random reader replica, if I recall correctly.
No path for busy people, unfortunately. Learn everything from ground up, from containers to Compose to k3s, maybe to kubeadm or hosted. Huge abstraction layers coming from Kubernetes serve their purpose well, but can screw you up when anything goes slightly wrong on the upper layer.
For start, ignore operators, ignore custom CSI/CNI, ignore IAM/RBAC. Once you feel good in the basics, you can expand.
Docker Compose (ignoring Swarm which seems to be obsolete) manages containers on a single machine. With Kubernetes, the pod that hosts the database is a pod like any other (I assume). It gets moved to a healthy machine when node goes bad, respects CPU/mem limits, works with generic monitoring tools, can be deployed from GitOps tools etc. All the k8s goodies apply.
When it comes to a DB moving the process around is easy, it's the data that matters. The reason bare-metal-hosted DBs are so fast is that they use direct-attach storage instead of networked storage. You lose those speed advantages if you move to distributed storage (Ceph/etc).
You don’t need to use networked storage, the zalando postgres operator just uses local storage on the host. It uses a StatefulSet underneath so that pods will stay on the same node until you migrate them.
But if I'm pinning it to dedicated machines then Kubernetes does not give me anything, but I still have to deal with its tradeoffs and moving parts - which from experience are more likely to bring me down than actual hardware failure.
It’s not like anyone’s recommending you setup k8s just to use Postgres. The advice is that, if you’re already using k8s, the Postgres operator is pretty great, and you should try it instead of using a hosted Postgres offering or having a separate set of dedicated (non-k8s) servers just for Postgres.
I will say that even though the StatefulSet pins the pod to a node, it still has advantages. The StatefulSet can be scaled to N nodes, and if one goes down, failover is automatic. Then you have a choice as an admin to either recover the node, or just delete the pod and let the operator recreate it on some other node. When it gets recreated, it resyncs from the new primary and becomes a replica and you’re back to full health, it’s all pretty easy IMO.
I run PostgreSQL+Patroni on Kubernetes where each instance is a separate StatefulSet pinned to dedicated hosts, with data on local ZFS volumes, provisioned by the OpenEBS controller.
I do this for multiple reasons, one is that I find it easier to use Kubernetes as the backend for Patroni, rather than running/securing/maintaining just another etcd cluster. But I also do it for observability, it's much nicer to be able to pull all the metrics and logs from all the components. Sure, it's possible to set that up without Kubernetes, but why if I can have the logs delivered just one way. Plus, I prefer how self-documenting the whole thing is. No one likes YAML manifests, but they are essentially running documentation that can't get out of sync.
THIS. Never promote the idea of "can you please not bother me with ads, there you go there is your extra $100, what, $200? okay sure". That's how mafia operates. Do not promote such.
People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear.
And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading, I think that's an extraordinary claim you have no evidence for.
Go lead a maoist insurgency or don't, but the fingerwagging moral appeal is worse than useless.
> People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear.
If I had to guess, the Mafia will have professional economists on payroll telling the bosses about the Laffer curve and emigration.
But in this context, Apple's clearly on the low end of the Laffer curve* because they don't need a million apps, so who cares if the store fees are 15% or 85%, the supply is still there?**; while for emigration, being the least bad of the Apple/Google duopoly is all that is necessary.
* if you take literally that the App store fee is the "Apple tax"
** Answer: Judges in market abuse/monopoly cases because Apple is not actually sovereign; on paper neither is the Mafia, but this is where "monopoly on violence" is a useful definition of a state, in that where anything like the Mafia can exist, the state is de facto not sovereign no matter what it says on paper.
>And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading,
If we're speaking of democratic governments you usually get to vote (whatever ineffective). And if we're speaking for non monopolistic corporations you also get to buy from another. With mafia there's a single, non-negotiable, option: the one running your area.
And both for goverments and corporations, there are other parties (e.g. courts) limiting what they can do.
How so? In china, app stores are open to market competition as an eventual consequence of a maoist insurgency.
It's fine if you're personally a coward or you just don't think it's worth it. But not only does it work, it is so far, the only thing that has ever been proven to work.
> definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading
Thinking about it. Your post now is also reductionist. Maybe that is your thing?
Using -ist instead of engaging in discussion or presenting any evidence or explanation whatsoever for extradorinaiy claims is in fact a thought-terminating cliche.
If I were to stoop to your level of reasoning and inquiry, I could simply say that you are are a racist and a sexist for disagreeing with me with just as much basis.
To be honest the parent's comment which related to mafia was already a bit streched but comparing it to maoist insurgency feels like the extreme of an extreme.
Can we please discuss how this comment is relevant to the Apple's discussion and how it fits in perhaps too.
Morality being absolute means just that you subjectively consider some moral rules absolute. Doesn't make them so, the way the law of gravity is absolute.
And it doesn't mean that every human society agrees to what you consider "absolute".
All things you consider "absolute", there are whole societies which found them to be just fine, and you'd do too if you were raised in them, including incest, murder of innocents, slavery, torture...
Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain. For instance Aristotle wasn't opposed to slavery, yet nonetheless in his writings, now some 2400+ years ago, he found himself obligated to lay out an extensive and lengthy defense and rationalization of such, and he even predicted what would eventually end it:
"For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'Of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.' If, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." [1]
There were millennia of efforts to end slavery, but it's only the technological and industrial revolution that finally succeeded in doing so. But the point is that even though Aristotle was ostensibly not opposed to slavery, he nonetheless knew it was a decision that needed justification because it was fundamentally repulsive, even in a society where it was ubiquitous and relatively non-controversial, thousands of years ago.
This 'natural repulsion' is, I think, some degree of evidence for persistent, if not absolute, morality throughout at least thousands of years of humanity's existence, and I see no reason to assume it would not trend back long further than that.
>Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain
Most "naturally repulsive" things were accepted just fine in one society or another.
Aristole spent time to defend and rationalize slavery because that was just job, to spend time rationalizing things. Other societies practiced it with no such worries, and found it perfectly natural.
But even if we grant you your "naturally repulsive" actions existing, it doesn't mean they are objectively morally wrong. Just that their moral judgement is not just based on culture and historical period, but also on evolutionary adaptations. These could very well be considered fine in an earlier/later evolutionary stage (in an earlier one, for sure: animals don't have such qualms).
His arguments were generally driven by logic and reason, not rationalization. Rationalization is generally only necessary for adopting views that seem ostensibly inappropriate, which would certainly include these sort of 'naturally repulsive' acts. And indeed his arguments for slavery were some of his weakest precisely because they were uncharacteristic rationalizations.
I completely agree that if you go back far enough in the evolutionary pipeline then my claim becomes invalid. I also think it would not apply to people of a sufficiently reduced IQ. You need to have a minimum of intelligence to understand what you're doing, alternatives, and its consequences on others. But once you have that baseline of IQ then I think morality, and a natural repulsion to certain behaviors, comes as naturally as communication.
>His arguments were generally driven by logic and reason, not rationalization. Rationalization is generally only necessary for adopting views that seem ostensibly inappropriate, which would certainly include these sort of 'naturally repulsive' acts.
I think that's an after-the-fact assessment of what his treatment of the subject was, which we arrive at because of our modern morals.
In his time he, and his audience, didn't think of it as rationalization, but as legitimate use of logic and reason, just like his treatment of other topics.
>But once you have that baseline of IQ then I think morality, and a natural repulsion to certain behaviors, comes as naturally as communication.
Might go the over way around too though: once you go above a certain IQ, it might be easier to treat morality as a fiction naked apes developed, as opposed to something objective, and even discard it entirely.
No, his arguments were materially different in this case. Most of his arguments came from first principles and worked outwards from some baseline; in particular - what is virtue and how virtue, itself, leads to satisfaction in life, and onward to how this can apply to systems and politics in general. But slavery he treated in an entirely different, practically ad hoc, fashion starting from slavery and then trying to shoe-horn in a justification along the lines of what you alluded to already with e.g. natural order and it being an inescapable inevitability.
It was a complete, and poor, rationalization. He even added, almost as a disclaimer, that there was not a complete overlap between 'natural' slaves and legal slaves, giving himself a plausible out to explain the endless examples of the repulsiveness of the institution by applying a no true scotmans fallacy, 'Ahh yes, I would agree with you there. But that is because that is not a natural slave, but merely a legal one.' And this is not my opinion alone. It has long been considered notably weak, especially from an otherwise brilliant man.
And I think that leads into your next issue. I don't think higher intelligence makes it easier to treat morality as a fiction, but rather even average intelligence, without discipline and virtue, makes it very easy to engage in self delusion and cognitive dissonance. Even those conditions are hardly a guarantee - Aristotle certainly had and strived for both discipline and virtue, yet the desire to rationalize what we want to be true, even if we know it is not, is a never-ending struggle that's easy to fail.
Classic butchering of otherwise decent Scrum idea. If assigning 2 points means no tests, then you are already using story points wrong, and complaining about it is meaningless.
Sounds like a lot of people got paid because of it. That's a win for them. It wasn't their decision, it was company decision to take part in the race. Most likely there will be more than 1 winner anyway.
I'm one of these people. We have to start working on the problem many months before the competition announces that they exist. So we are all just doing parallel evolution here. Everyone agrees that to sit and wait for a standard means you wouldn't waste energy, but you'd also have no influence.
Like you mentioned, its a good time to be employed.
It's not really going to benefit ME anything. It will benefit my employer this amount. I might get an extra bonus for successful migration, but it's peanuts compared to the savings.
So in such situation, I'd be tempted to actively oppose this initiative.
That's the thing. It actually really matters whether the ideas presented are coming from a coworker, or the ideas are coming from LLM.
I've seem way too many scenarios where I'm asking a coworker, if we should do X or Y, and all I get is a useless wall of spewed text, with a complete disregard to the project and circumstances on hand. I need YOUR input, from YOUR head right now. If I could ask Copilot I'd do that myself, thanks.
reply