ZeroSolstice

قبل 6 أشهرdiscuss

I think the saying is "missing the forest for the trees.[1]"

Referring someone to another food bank or resource is not addressing or owning the immediate problem, which is what the experiment showed. Those organizations failed at their primary objective and instead of re-evaluating why they failed they hid behind process and procedure and how they were being tricked since it wasn't a "real" problem.

There was a proper way to handle this situation as anyone who has worked or called into customer service or tech support where their issue was addressed no matter what the internal structure of the organization was.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miss%20the%20fore...

ZeroSolstice

قبل 9 أشهرdiscuss

[dead]

ZeroSolstice

قبل 9 أشهرdiscuss

[dead]

ZeroSolstice

قبل 10 أشهرdiscuss

Correct, which is why .local wouldn't become a TLD or part of a standard for home network reserved domains.

ZeroSolstice

قبل 10 أشهرdiscuss

I agree it would be great to get some of the vendor pushed / common domains put into an accepted standard.

In my interaction with IETF standards they are created / implemented in two ways:

  1. They set the forward direction for a new technology before it is wide spread.
  2. They wait for a technology to become popular / accepted and start to set standards from that baseline.

Both are reasonable paths of implementation given how the pace of changes in technology.

I doubt .lan, .local, .home, etc will either become public or a standard just based on existing devices that default to these domains and documentation or books that might reference them as example domains.

ZeroSolstice

قبل 10 أشهرdiscuss

I didn't see a specific RFC that reserved .lan however from the proposed standard RFC 8375 home.arpa is suggested.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8375

ZeroSolstice

قبل 12 شهرًاdiscuss

[dead]

ZeroSolstice

قبل 12 شهرًاdiscuss

[dead]

ZeroSolstice

قبل 12 شهرًاdiscuss

Where? Should they drop them at a starbucks out front? Have an employee volunteer their home address? Put them out front at the office? How long should they hold onto the "free" cables that people are going to ask ridiculous questions such as "Do they work? When were they tested?" Are you going to force people to take all the cable or allow random selections? Are you going to waste the cost savings of moving to the cloud to have one of your tech people monitor requests for pickup? What if no one picks them up are you calling the recycler out again to pick up the cables you could have just given them?

Anyone who has posted "free" things online knows it comes a cost, thats the logic part I was referring too. When you work through the scenarios the "logical" conclusion is to give them to the recycler that you already have out at the datacenter for the systems you are decommissioning.

ZeroSolstice

قبل 12 شهرًاdiscuss

Free pickup? at a secure data center?

Lets use some logic here. The disposal company is taking the cables with them to recycle them for the copper wire. Same with power cables.

ZeroSolstice

قبل 12 شهرًاdiscuss

This is common compliance nomenclature. The only people paying the high cost to have a full sized piece of equipment destroyed are governments or R&D companies with unique prototypes.

The hard drives are most likely being shredded since that is a common practice and certification feature offered by most disposal companies.

The servers are being "destroyed" because thats how they will be accounted for in inventory and tax purposes to account for full depreciation. The company isn't "selling" the servers to the disposal company so they are marked as "destroyed."

Unless specified in the contract the disposal company will sell the chassis without the drives to a reseller or if they are being paid to dispose of the system, they will separate the components and recycle the metal.

The same goes for the power and network cables, they will go off to a recycler, its how disposal companies off-set their pricing.

ZeroSolstice

السنة الماضيةdiscuss

I found that the book "Writing to Learn" by William Zinsser was excellent in convening this process. As noted in the book the author advocated for more writing to be included in all subjects.

  <https://goodreads.com/book/show/585474.Writing_to_Learn>

ZeroSolstice

السنة الماضيةdiscuss

Reading, writing and math have been the constants utilized throughout life and as such have been core subjects carried through educational systems. I'm not quite sure what subjects and topics we would be teaching future generations that didn't include reading, writing, math and science. At the very least writing should be included in more subjects. The hidden feature of including writing in all subjects, as you might have seen in your history endeavor's, is improvements in critical thinking, formulating cohesive arguments and a clearer understanding of topics.

There are greater difficulties that people will have to do in their daily lives than being "forced" to learn how to read, write and do arithmetic. Maybe learning the lesson of overcoming smaller, difficult tasks will allow them to adapt to greater difficulties in the future.

To quote Seneca:

  A gem can not be polished with friction, nor a man perfected without trials.

ZeroSolstice

قبل سنتينdiscuss

This quote mostly applies to people who don't want to spend the time learning existing tooling, making improvements and instead create a slightly different wheel but with different problems. It also applies to people trying to apply "google" solutions to a non-google company.

Kubernetes and all tooling in the cloud native computing foundation(CNCF) were created to have people adopt the cloud and build communities that then created jobs roles that facilitated hiring people to maintain cloud presences that then fund cloud providers.

This is the same playbook that Microsoft did at Universities. They would give the entire suite of tools in the MSDN library away then then in roughly (4) years collect when another seat needs to be purchased for a new hire that has only used Microsoft tools for the last (4) years.

ZeroSolstice

قبل سنتينdiscuss

> The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN.

I disagree. There are numerous times where I have browsed the comments on a HN post where people haven't read the article and are just responding to the comment thread. The workflow for this seems a bit different in that a person would have already read a paper and wanted to read through existing discussions or respond to discussion. With that, having the search front and center would follow as the next steps for a person who read a paper and wanted to "search" for discussions related to that paper in particular.

HN is more an aimless browsing which is a bit different than researching a specific area or topic.