I'm not following. Doesn't the outbox pattern just pass the buck?
The motive seems to be a naive process that enqueues a message and then commits to a database - two independent actions. But a well-behaved process would commit to a database, and then only if successful enqueue a message. That's better but still not atomic - commit, crash, and no message queued.
So the solution is a two-table write - the outbox pattern. But the process that reads the outbox must commit both a query and delete before sending the message. That's the same risk as the agreement well-behaved program - commit, crash, and no message queued. Except now you introduced another pipeline element so your overall complexity increases, and so too risk.
What if you never delete messages from the outbox? Well, what you have now is no longer an outbox nor a database nor useful for large volumes. What if you implement a database to track procesed messages. Return to square one - that's the same problem you were initially trying to solve.
What if you fetch, enqueue, and then delete? Ohh... that works. In case of a crash the message remains in the outbox. It may be processed in duplicate, but eventually if successfully it will be deleted from the outbox.
The message broker then receives a possibly duplicate message. It must consult its internal database, and if the message is unique, route it. So right back at square one. Can't have atomicity and uniqueness.
Or a nihilist, or a fatalist, or a pessimist, or an antinatalist, or a realist.
Don't go putting people into boxes. That's the path of persecution.
You have the inalienable right to say what you want on a plane, limited by what the government is allowed to prosecute. In a confined space, that is a bit riskier. That's a solely personal choice - no laws are being broken. The Captain has the right to ask you to conform or leave, but that's a separate issue.
People are being overly sensitive. A wifi name is not a protest. It does not disturb personal privacy and tranquility. It's about as offensive as an article titled "We’re All Gonna Die!" from your favorite news outlet - which by the way, is not an uncommon headline.
What if my wifi name was "peanut butter for all!" but unbeknownst to me and by some rare cosmic coincidence everyone on the plane was deathly allergic to peanut butter. Does that make me a terrorist? No! But I swear someone would try to drag me through decades of litigation regardless. These people seem to have divorced words and meanings from the mechanics of how the world works. Like, "this piece of paper says you shouldn't say this, so off with your head".
I think advertisements are socially acceptable and actually expected to be as blatantly offensive as possible. How would people react if it were "Boeing go boom. Fly Airbus now! Text 777 NOW for Airbus discounts."
More energy will be required than radiation absorbed by a spherical (ish) data center. You'll have massive solar panels piping energy in, and so the temperature would by higher than thermal equilibrium at that distance.
For supported devices, which include Pixel 8, Pixel 9, and Pixel 10 series, the Find Hub network can locate your phone for several hours even if the battery runs out or the device is powered off.
"""
What about the find-my-phone BLE database, for which I just learned modern phones broadcast even when off? Is that controlled by the OS (Google, Apple) and not the carrier?
How was Amandla even identified? Stingray at the protest? Then how was the phone number linked to Google? Facial recognition at the protest? I guess his details are on file under terms of the visa? So then the government simply asks Google for all details on the individual by name? Either is pretty disturbing.
That's interesting. So you want to train language, linguistic reasoning, and tool use, but otherwise strip out all knowledge in lieu of a massive context? Just grade they model on how well it can access local information, perhaps also run tools?
Good. The internet is meant to uplift human society, not enable petty theft. If only they could have gone after each thief to take back the money they stole.
What is it like purchasing consumer goods from the EU under the new 10% section 122 rates? Previously I could have expected 25% tariffs + UPS/govt fees equivalent to another 40%. But hearing the horrors of shippers (UPS, FedEx, DHL) charging import fees equivalent to 1000% with no recourse to refuse the shipment and recoup costs, I never pulled the trigger. Has anything changed with the section 122 rates, especially considering the $800 de minimus exception won't be reinstated?
It's still possible for two commits to conflict only semantically, one obsoleting the other. Merging both would lead to dead code so perhaps stricter (line-base or ast-based) conflicts would be preferable.
The motive seems to be a naive process that enqueues a message and then commits to a database - two independent actions. But a well-behaved process would commit to a database, and then only if successful enqueue a message. That's better but still not atomic - commit, crash, and no message queued.
So the solution is a two-table write - the outbox pattern. But the process that reads the outbox must commit both a query and delete before sending the message. That's the same risk as the agreement well-behaved program - commit, crash, and no message queued. Except now you introduced another pipeline element so your overall complexity increases, and so too risk.
What if you never delete messages from the outbox? Well, what you have now is no longer an outbox nor a database nor useful for large volumes. What if you implement a database to track procesed messages. Return to square one - that's the same problem you were initially trying to solve.
What if you fetch, enqueue, and then delete? Ohh... that works. In case of a crash the message remains in the outbox. It may be processed in duplicate, but eventually if successfully it will be deleted from the outbox.
The message broker then receives a possibly duplicate message. It must consult its internal database, and if the message is unique, route it. So right back at square one. Can't have atomicity and uniqueness.