DATACOMMANDER

25 ms·

181.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Uber-nitpick, but I’m pretty sure that you meant to suggest that serverless appears to be about creating vendor lock-in, not about creating “vendor locked-in” technical debt. While technical debt can take the form of vendor lock-in, the two
182.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Yeah, simpler to just serve all content from the file server sitting in your garage. After all, you tested your site from the laptop on your kitchen table, and everything loaded just fine.
183.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
They didn’t get the magic functionality they wanted because magic isn’t real. Coming from a devops background with more of an emphasis on “ops” than “dev”, my (admittedly biased) opinion is that a lot of developers believe three things simu
184.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
I think it’s a play on the word serverless and their argument that serverless is a lot less performant than “serverful” in the general use case. “Less is more” ==> “serverless is more” ==> “But serverless is too much less performant”
185.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
How is it an opinion piece? If you called it a bait-and-switch I might agree, since it starts off criticizing the performance of serverless architectures in general, and proceeds to critique the performance of one specific serverless archit
186.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
I think that the authors of the paper would say that, ideally, serverless would be ubiquitous, the obvious choice for the vast majority of use cases. A pipe dream? Perhaps. But that’s the dream, and we’ll never be able to make the dream a r
187.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Care to elaborate? Edit: to clarify, I’m referring to the assertion at the end of your comment, and I’m genuinely interested.
188.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
The paper didn’t mention any fundamental limitations. Its main point was that current serverless architectures suffer from two major performance deficiencies: inter[process/agent/what-have-you] communication is funneled through th
189.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
You sound like a white nationalist ranting about the Jews.
190.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
$14B is ~0.4% of $3422B, not 0.004%. You’re off by a factor of 100.
191.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
In all seriousness, you sound a little antisocial. I see where you’re coming from and I sympathize, but the environment described by the poster you’re replying to sounds very mildly manipulative at worst. I’m not sure you understand that th
192.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
This misses a big part of the picture. People—especially single young men—are ambitious and competitive. Someone with enough skill to be on-call at a modern manufacturing plant—let alone a software engineer—is not just scraping by. He doesn
193.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
It might be culture; it might be biology. It’s probably a combination of both. Either way, why, exactly, is it a problem?
194.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
The simplest and most likely explanation for the disparity is that women are naturally less interested in and/or not as good at chess, on average.
195.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Personally, I’m not convinced that the win was beyond the ability of any human to find. Previous generations of players spent much more time studying the endgame (as opposed to endless openening preparation), and I can see Fischer or Capa,
196.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
This again raises the issue of speech vs absence of speech. What if a cloud provider has applications that confirm deletions that are initiated by the user? A secret warrant prohibits disclosure of the warrant’s existence, but now we’re tal
197.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
You can’t expect Apple to do an investigation of every phone they wipe at a customer’s request. What about Google Docs? Even if the user clicks the “delete” button, Google performs the physical act of deletion. So should clicking that butto
198.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Thank you for this post. People seem to be treating warrant canaries as a sort of “gotcha!” defense that no judge would take seriously, but you’ve given a good explanation of why it’s not.
199.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
I didn’t downvote you, but I think you were downvoted because the post you were replying to was asking a legal/ethical question about whether it’s acceptable to accidentally destroy evidence in general, and you gave an unsupported answ
200.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
They would have gotten that revenue even if the research had been privately funded.
201.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
Why is it that vulnerabilities are almost unavoidable? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass; I’m an analyst at an MSP and I’m doing my first pen-test soon. I’m under no illusions that my job title or growing responsibilities make me a security
202.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
That’s a fair point. From a utilitarian perspective, I think you’re probably right. Unfortunately, the public will not follow this dispassionate line of reasoning if AI drivers start killing people in “large” numbers, even if there’s strong
203.
by DATACOMMANDER 8y ago
This seems backwards to me. Shouldn’t we be comparing the performance self-driving cars to the performance of competent human drivers? The variance in human driving ability is quite high, which suggests (to me) that self-driving cars will b