cyberax

3 ms·

1.
by cyberax 5d ago
Sell it to whom? Who is going to be buying the assets? And what about employees? (never mind that "selling assets" is just a workaround for "selling business")
2.
by cyberax 5d ago
The thing is, we're now learning that efficient resource allocation in the short run is not necessarily what we want in the long run.
3.
by cyberax 5d ago
OK. Your job is from now is dung transport. Because you inherited it, whether you like it or not. Sure, you are allowed to start a new business. But where would you get money? You can't sell your dung transport business, and you don&#x
4.
by cyberax 6d ago
OK. Here's my simple implementation of an LSP: > func doLspStuff() { sleep(60000); } Now sprinkle them after each keypress. Do you see the issue now?
5.
by cyberax 6d ago
TCP roundtrip overhead over localhost costs approximately nothing. But running the LSP itself is slow. It's not instant, and you can't run it in a blocking way for each keypress.
6.
by cyberax 7d ago
Yes, it does because the physical code update is asynchronous. Or you'd have to do a roundtrip for every little edit, resulting in unusably slow experience.
7.
by cyberax 7d ago
Hint: a lot of time, the real answer is "kickbacks". Find a commercial Postgres provider (EnterpriseDB) and partner with them.
8.
by cyberax 7d ago
Moreover, it's not just stupid, it also does not actually solve _anything_. A synchronous function can also have obsolete indexing information if it races with the code updates.
9.
by cyberax 7d ago
Stupid idea. So the LSP crashes and/or goes into a runaway memory consumption loop. And your main application dies with it. Or what if you want, you know, to be able to use the same LSP from TWO different applications at the same time?
10.
by cyberax 7d ago
:groan:
11.
by cyberax 8d ago
I'm advising a startup doing software for banks, and the overall attitude of their clients is: "We want to get away from the #&I$*@&^#$ Oracle, but we're stuck for now". Oracle used to be a must-have because it w
12.
by cyberax 8d ago
I'd love to use GrapheneOS on less secure devices, just for the sake of Google autonomy rather than privacy.
13.
by cyberax 8d ago
There were several credible competitors: WebOS, Symbian, Maemo/MeeGo, Palm OS 6, and of course Windows Mobile. But they required cooperating with a single vendor and/or a lot of work to adapt. Android won because it was available
14.
by cyberax 8d ago
Yeah, and these LEGO blocks are strewn around the room by a 3-year-old just waiting for you to step on them. It's the worst thing, there is no organization in systemd. No rhyme or reason to it. The basic core service supervision in sys
15.
by cyberax 8d ago
And it's crap. It still lists blog posts from 2012. There is NO good overall diagram of all the moving pieces in systemd.
16.
by cyberax 8d ago
Is anything YOU do useful? This is a very useful project for me, because I occasionally need real Excel.
17.
by cyberax 8d ago
One good option that is not (yet?) mentioned here is a deadline for retries. You can cap the request duration by, say, 500ms and pass the remaining time budget to downstream services. This can be done via an HTTP header and enforced by the
18.
by cyberax 9d ago
I review all the agentic code and commit it myself. I also write some features manually, especially when I want to really make sure that I don't screw up. E.g. for authentication or for observability. I also found that slowing down you
19.
by cyberax 9d ago
IE5 and then IE6 were head-and-shoulders better than Mozilla around the 1999-2002 era. They were significantly faster and lighter, and not just because of the deep OS integration but because Mozilla's browser was actually a full Web su
20.
by cyberax 9d ago
Yes, normal S3 is at least triply-redundant. But it's possible for S3 to lose some data if two DCs are down and a disk dies in the single remaining DC. AWS doesn't use parity for S3, they actually mirror the data.
21.
by cyberax 9d ago
Some systems in AWS do, but they typically need a quorum of at least two copies to work. Other systems only have 2 copies. And in this case, it looks like all three DCs were damaged.
22.
by cyberax 9d ago
> Have you ever asked yourself why there would be 140,737,488,355,328 (half of all) MAC addresses reserved for broadcast if it had no utilities over setting ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff? Mostly because of a historic accident. > Because ARP uses
23.
by cyberax 9d ago
> Maybe you're used to layering in areas of CS outside of networking? E.g. page 476 of TCP IP Illustrated by Fall and Stevens gives an example in the opposite direction than what you just said Yes. The interaction of UDP and IP _is_
24.
by cyberax 9d ago
I kinda overdid it with a tape library (40 tapes capacity, LTO-9), but I'm using it for my company's AI model backups. _That_ setup was about $12k. I had a smaller setup before, with a simple external LTO-5 drive. Used drives are
25.
by cyberax 9d ago
I bought a tape library for my backups, but that's probably an overkill. On the other hand, LTO-5 drives are now pretty affordable. And each tape cartridge holds around 2Tb of data for about $20.
26.
by cyberax 9d ago
It's a great service for large caches. For example, we process a lot of imagery that we download from third-party providers. We save a lot of latency by storing the data in a single-AZ S3. If it dies, we will just have to re-download t
27.
by cyberax 9d ago
That's actually true. AWS is designed to survive one datacenter being offline (which happened more than once, btw). When the first DC in ME was hit, AWS continued working normally, with only a few services experiencing issues. But it&#
28.
by cyberax 9d ago
One thing about salt domes: they almost by definition are surrounded by very low-permeability dry soils. Because otherwise they would have dissolved long ago! And a related way to use salt domes is for natural gas storage.
29.
by cyberax 10d ago
> In ND, I do the same to be able to DAD my link local address by saying I'm :: (also all 0s) but at least the destination is still not ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff There is no real difference. All Ethernet packets that have bit 7 set in the f
30.
by cyberax 10d ago
Are you a bot? "Layering violation" has a pretty clear meaning in CS. It means that a layer needs information from an upper layer for the system to work, or if a lower-level layer internal details are not abstracted properly. For

More ›