Hi! Welcome to my profile. This text aims to tell you a little about who I am.
I am a user of hackernews with username "advisedwang", an account that was created in Oct 12, 2010. You can find information about me at https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=advisedwang.
The system seems to have no master or leader at all. Where in the article did you get that reads from a master have no consensus?
Of course, you could build database that uses meerkat to do leader election, and then neither reads nor writes need to go through the consensus algo. But then you've basically just reproduced conventional distributed db, and you're back to the timeout problems this was supposed to solve.
It doesn't mention CAP because it's obviously opting for consistency over availability, and is explicitly compared next to other systems that treat consistency as paramount. There's nothing interesting or new about it's approach to CAP.
This sounds like a very direct approach to linearizability - just put everything in a linear order.
But this includes READ operations too! You have to get global consensus for every read! Most distributed systems have additional complexity and latency on write paths so that reads can be completely local. If you can accept slow read operations this seems like a great trade off, but I think that is going to relegate this to niece usage.
Until legislators fear loosing their seats more than they desire a policy, they're not going listen to the people. That's why political manovering, lobbying, activism etc are part of the political process.
It's even worse for places like the EU that have a strong civil service or with a branch like the EC that isn't elected, because the processes above are very insulated from the general public
So many comments about the EU constantly re-trying the same law with minor tweaks, and about how legislatures do this in general. I wanted to provide an explanation for this behaviour.
The way legislation is expected to proceed in countries with parliamentary systems, especially with strong civil services, is that
1) a problem is identified. This can be the civil service detecting it on their own, petitioning from groups impacted by the problem (lobbying, the public etc).
2) The government prioritizes problems to solve according to political imperatives.
3) The civil service and/or parliamentary committees gather evidence on the problem and possible solutions.
4) the civil service and/or committee report on the issue. In practice this always finds the solution that the government wanted.
5) A bill is drafted based on the report.
6) The bill then proceeds through parliamentary committee, legislative votes, and whatever else is part of the lawmaking process.
When we see this issues fail, it's typically at step (6). But the problem still exists, and the issue is still on the agenda. It's still a priority to solve. So steps 4-6 are re-tried with different parameters that hopefully allow the bill to pass and the problem to be solved.
Just failing to pass parliament is not enough. You also need the political leadership to redirect their prioritization and implicit preferred solution.
I'm not saying this is good, just this is what happens.
This article and the one it is responding to are explicitly talking about non-business meeting contexts. They are talking about personal conversations, medical appointments and much more casual business contexts like informal interviews. Places where there would never have been a secretary present.
It needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It's not a large plot. It doesn't seem to be in an attractive location. For all we know the water is undrinkable. I suspect its true value is negative.
This says it's using AmazonBrandFilter's list of brands. Why would we use/support this chrome extension instead of the upstream one [1] which is actually doing the important maintanance task?
"Knockoff" seems to be literally describing itself.
> I'm guessing the police simply reached out to all the analytics companies Ngrok ends up indirectly/directly sending data to, which ends up saving everything they get their hands on.
But those companies would have no way of knowing the GDID. It's not sent in a header, I assume.
Automakers are constantly doing functionality-neutral tweaks. There's fashion in how cars looks, and they want every year's model to feel new. Climate control is constant, but one generation has a knob, the next has a slider, the next adds an extra zone, the next changes fan speed from two buttons to a single "up-down" button and so on.
I have heard (but have no insider knowledge) that it's not just the cost of parts, but what parts do to the development lifecycle.
With physical parts, the development process is highly sequential. Pick the look, design how it fits, engineer what parts are used, manufacture tooling etc etc in a waterfall. If a revision needs to be made, the whole process needs to be re-started adding a huge amount of delays.
With a touchscreen, the physical touchscreen and the software that runs on it are parallel threads. You can make most UI changes without impacting the manufacturing/design pipeline at all. You don't even need to have planned what the interface looks like before you finalize the parts needed.
Google provides annual RSU refreshes. There is no "last RSU".
This announcement is also 9 years after they started, and Google has a 4 year vesting schedule, so it's not even possible that this coming after the initial grant vests.
This is a completely unfair and unsubstantiated dismissal of the article.
Of course, but is there any actual evidence that these accounts are NSA related? Or is it an assumption because they are supporting the proposal (which would be very circular logic)
I am a user of hackernews with username "advisedwang", an account that was created in Oct 12, 2010. You can find information about me at https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=advisedwang.