DevOps like Agile was a beautiful idea with a coherent underlying well reasoned philosophy.
DevOps like Agile was then hacked to pieces and had its corpse paraded around by sleazy consultants and idiotic management that was told "you can save all this money on all your infrastructure people by making your developers do all the ops stuff to." And who doesn't like saving money on those useless crusty old system administrators that don't seem to do anything except whine for "more disk space" if they were so smart they would've prevented that outage la da t week where the logging volume filled up.
Finally the toolmakers sold the idea that DevOps was something you could buy. Just like the vendors convinced management that buy purchasing Jira you were now agile, now if you have a CI/CD pipeline you are now doing DevOps. But you still can't release without getting approval from the release committee and you can't actually provision a new host in the cloud until you have filled out the requsite approval forms, but key for some reason we uprooted our monolith and threw it on kubenetes so we are doing DevOps.
It really feels like relieving the Agile cycle all over again in every detail. Just wish I could figure out the next big fad so I could get in on this money printer.
PS. If you use the term DevSecOps or DevSecFinOps unironiclly your living proof the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It's always been the people, not the process. I've basically been the same sysadmin with a CS degree I've been since before I got a degree. I've been called a developer, a sysadmin, pool boy, IT, site reliability... It's all the same job - keep things scaling, running and watch the budget. Move the product forward by enabling the people who make the product. Occasionally be the adult in the room who knows how the sausage is made from the metal to the frontend.
People try and put a label on it to market it so they can sell it back to you.
My clients rarely know what I'm specifically I'm working on because I'm a technical grazer who just monitors the world looking for interesting problems - but they continue to pay me and I believe they extract a fairly positive value from me.
If I ever stuck to a single job title, they'd probably expect me to stop grazing - but that's what makes me happy and productive.
Which is painfully ironic, because as soon as somewhere starts 'doing agile' it's all about the (scrum) process, bluster abounds, and everything is in pretty rigid sprints, scope changes to be avoided, etc.
Management just slaps agile onto everything nowadays. No time given for coming up with better solution, reducing tech debt. Most companies devolving into feature factories now. I call this methodology FRAGILE®
Wow what is Canada's end game here? First they tell the search engines. Engines they have to hand over part of their revenue to legacy media. Now they're going after all the streaming services. Like what is their actual end game? Rather than trying to do something to improve their own economic situation, their solution is just a parasitically leech off of other countries. Large businesses. I mean there's a case to be made for ensuring that massive conglomerates better than appropriate tax burden, but there's got to be a better way than just hamfistedly slapping arbitrary revenue numbers on every service offered in the country, especially when it's already more expensive than across the border. I guess what I'm really asking is who is John Galt?
> Major online streaming services operating in Canada will be required to contribute 5% of their Canadian revenues to support the domestic broadcasting system
Canada has a long history of mandating a certain amount of attention and money goes toward supporting Canadian content.
This seems entirely consistent with that.
In the past they were able to leverage Federal control over the airwaves to achieve this (eg. selling off spectrum) but with the internet they need to come up with new revenue models to achieve the same levels of support for Canadian content.
Canada's economy is kept afloat by inflating a housing bubble and playing all sorts of dirty tricks with taxes. Now that Mexico is taking a lot of Canada's business, Canada becomes less and less relevant to US, expect more of this shenanigans.
This was Trudeau/Freeland's idea of "getting back at the man for nafta 2"
I think his comment contains a speech-to-text error. I assume it is supposed to read "their solution is just a parasitically leech off of other countries' large businesses."
Doesn’t seem that different than the US government subsidizing US manufacturing and enacting tariffs on Chinese goods.
It’s a society trying to incentivize investment within the society, because the society’s products/services are not cost competitive with products/services from another society. If it is due to economies of scale, there is almost no way to incentivize that other than to penalize the outside products/services.
Yes false rumours and unsubstantiated claims such as
- COVID came from the Wuhan virology lab
-The NIH was funding gain of function research in Wuhan.
- There are rich pedophile businessmen that are pimping out underage girls to be able to blackmail them.
I could go on and on, because those are all horrible unsubstantiated rumours and I am glad we hunted down people who shared them persecuted and hounded them and limited their freedom to share things like that.
I feel that something happened at Google gradually and over the past few years but did happen.
They initially paid a lot of money to hire the best and brightest minds, they created crazy algorithmic interviews and a lot of hoops and became known as the place where the best went.
Then it got inverted that the best go to Google so if you were at Google you were the best. Which led to people optimizing for the money.and optimizing to get into google. The problem was what was once a singal and a filter then became an objective and a goal.
Overtime the organization crew and people left due to culture changes from being a scrappy startup to being a F50 company, or retiring or just wanting something new.
The problem was the best and brightest had put together systems that couldn't be maintained by those that weren't also fantasticaly competent, after debugging is twice as hard as coding and all that, and so slowly over time the whole house of cards is rotting slowly overtime as more and more problems accumulate but the individuals left aren't competent enough to fix them or address them, and I don't just mean at the engineering level but the whole stack from engineering to upper management.
The Goths showed up sacked Rome for its wealth and treasure but can no longer keep the grain coming and the fountains running.
Google 2010 was a very different place from Google 2014, I only imagine it’s got worse.
When I started in 2010 managers had IDEs and could discuss code, it didn’t matter if I came in at 11AM because I was there until 9PM and got the work done of 10 engineers (and led a bigger team)
In 2014 is when other middle managers started pulling rank instead of letting data and facts win, suddenly being in at 9AM was important, suddenly programming skill was less important then brown-nosing, moronic death marches started as the B level,“yes men” programmers were hired, who were too scared to question authority and think for themselves.
So I left and started my first company, best decision ever, but I imagine Google has got worse internally, especially seeing their laughably poor AI search results of late
> but I imagine Google has got worse internally, especially seeing their laughably poor AI search results of late
Hey, who are we to question the wisdom of the AI highlighting fucksmith's 11-year-old Reddit post about adding non-toxic glue to our pizzas to help the cheese stick, when most of us aren't even paste-eaters.
I love freenet as we continue to see the growth of authoritative bodies attempt to control the Internet I think it will become more and more important.
The other thing I love about freenet is it feels exactly like using the Internet in the late 90's in almost every way. Same speeds, same simple pages, same crazy whackos spouting conspiracy theories about how JFK shot first, it really is a time capsule that I love.
No relation except that it's created by the same person tackling the same problem (in a more general way) and sharing many underlying concepts like small world networking. The FAQ covers the main differences: https://freenet.org/faq#faq-3
I assume they may be referring to freenets that was an early method of accessing the internet for free, not requiring AOL or some other service for access.
True, they might be referring to that, although if so this is the first time I’ve heard such a complaint in 25 years.
The usage of the term "free-net" to describe early methods of free internet access was quite obscure even in 1999, I only learned of it years after starting Freenet.
Wow, I just remembered that I had an account on one of these "free-net" systems at some point in high school (late 1990s).
It was a much more trusting time in which people routinely gave all kinds of computer access to strangers just to help them out, or in some sense to help the net grow. When my computer club set up a Linux server at our high school, we sort of joined in by happily giving shell accounts to random strangers who had no connection with the school at all. Nobody seemed to think this was a bad idea!
Yes, it reminds me that apparently email in the 1970s didn't even bother with passwords - everyone just had an inbox file that was publicly readable/writable. How times have changed.
"Freenet" already had a very specific meaning in the early ninities which could only be obscure if one was not paying attention.
I still maintain my freenet email address from 1991.
I recommend you find your own name for your very comendable project,
swiping an existing one is confusing and somewhat dodgy.
It may have had that meaning in the early 90s but by the late 90s it was obscure, so much so that the domain freenet.org remained registered but unused from 1999 until I was able to acquire it in 2019.
Calling this "swiping" implies I was aware of the previous meaning, I wasn't. Moreover, in 25 years this may be the first time someone has complained about it.
In any case, this is all ancient history at this point.
The particular swiping in question happened a couple of decades ago now (I agree that it was a confusing ambiguity at the time); the proposed swiping now could also be a confusing ambiguity, but would be by the same people who were responsible for the prior swiping.
I disagree that any "swiping" took place as I wasn't aware of the prior meaning because hardly anyone was using it in 1999, nor did anyone bring it up at the time.
Similarly, no swiping took place more recently unless you think using the name of my own project is "swiping". I address this in more detail in a recent [1] reddit comment.
I meant to be partly tongue-in-cheek in saying that, although this doesn't come through well in text, but I do share the present-day concern about people potentially becoming confused.
I found that forced namegrab by the original autor quite rude in the beginning, but now I made peace with that and like the name hyphanet even more. That whole drama backfired for him: First, there will be always this discussion. Second, the term Freenet is quite unusable in search engines, whereas hyphanet is nice and unique to find in search engines.
I think this is important. At the end of the day you have to live with yourself, and it's easier to live with a person who is nice rather than one who is mean.
"Listen Jack making people have two factor introduces friction to the signup process, which reduces customers, which reduces growth and profits. Meanwhile if there's a security incident what are they going to do, they can't sue us we made a TOS change that prevents that, so all they can do is b** on the internet. It just doesn't make sense to waste money on security because it isn't our security." - The Roku CEO probably.
Once signed up for the WSJ. Took 10 minutes just put in my credit card and address, got a sign up discount, and boom was done.
3 months later I needed to cancel. It turns out you can only cancel by a phone call, during their business hours on the east coast. Of course that wasn't the end because then it was probably twenty minutes on hold and fighting with. "No I want to cancel. No I don't care if you offer me a discount, I am pissed you made me call in to cancel. No I don't want to suspend I want to quit."
Swore I would never purchase them again if they are going to do something like that.
Just checked. They will now let me cancel online. It has suspend and cancel options next to each other and bills itself as "1 click cancel." Maybe they listened to you.
Counterpoint against that. Because optometry isn't considered part of the "healthcare" umbrella when I went to get LASIK it was the easiest medical transaction that I've ever done. They explained what they would do, said this was the price, then said they could offer a discount and when I was still considering they said they could give me another discount. I got the upfront price paid for it got my surgery and went on my way. This wasn't some shady Nick Riveria place either it was one of the premier LASIK facilities in the world.
By contrast trying to do something as simple as buying a new medical device for my wife has been a Kafkaesque nightmare with random charges, wrong billing codes, switching companies, fighting insurance, demonstrating need, etc, etc for something I am willing to purchase. The device is also marked up several thousand percent to boot.
Part of the problem with the healthcare discussion is that we need to clarify what we mean by healthcare. When I hear people complain about healthcare they either are complaining about medicine, or hospital stays with crazy and confusing billing processes, and these 2 problems are completely different than each other and require a whole different set of discussions apporaches and solutions, but everyone just talks about "healthcare" with no nuance and it obscures any possible forward progress.
As a final question for pondering how much healthcare does everyone deserve? I think we'd agree it probably isn't reasonable to say a 96 year old woman should get a multimillion dollar experimental cancer treatment that will extend her life by 6 months before dying, on the other hand simply having access to Ibeprofun and Antibiotics means you have access to better medical care than anyone else at any point in history longer than 40 or 50 years ago?
Your nuanced plan of paying for things yourself completely falls apart once you or a loved one contracts stage II or higher cancer, suffers life threatening injuries from a car crash or any of a panopoly of unfortunate situations that would completely exceed your ability to self insure.
I am also not impressed with all of these just asking questions it's so complicated asides; there are dozens of existence proofs that demonstrate a diverse set of approaches that more or less solve this problem at the nation level. But that would require a bit of curiosity about how the rest of the world works, I suppose.
The problem with health care/insurance in the US is not because of unanswered economic theories (or lack of half baked econ 101 approaches), rather it's because of hard ideological commitments to maximize rent extraction based on historical contingencies.
Ever wonder why US corporations generally provide health insurance? World War II something something.
Optometrists don’t do LASIK though, only medical doctors. So you just saw an optometrist that works outside the insurance sphere since most medical insurance doesn’t cover LASIK. I do take your point though that when it’s a competitive environment away from insurance claims yes the service magically improves dramatically and the BS goes away.
Right, when most people complain about health care, they aren't complaining about quality of care when they get it. They're complaining about not being able to afford it.
Or, it being too confusing. That's a problem with health insurance, and not with money.
That's why some think that a national health care system that is designed primarily around effectiveness of distribution of payment, rather than extracting maximum profit from the flow of money between patient and provider, is the moral and effective solution.
To your last point, rationing low availability health care is nothing new. Alcoholics can't get liver transplants for example. There's a whole field of bioethics that can surely answer some of those questions.
> That's why some think that a national health care system that is designed primarily around effectiveness of distribution of payment, rather than extracting maximum profit from the flow of money between patient and provider, is the moral and effective solution.
Why would we expect the incentives inherent in putting health care under the monopolistic control of those who seek political power to be any more favorable than those manifest in the current situation of apparent oligopolistic control by both profit-seekers and political-power-seekers?
Where would this solution leave those who just want to obtain services directly from service providers, without any political or financial middlemen either taking a cut, usurping their agency, or homogenizing the market?
Oh I think most people who complain are upset by the attitude of medical workers and overall hubris inherent in the profession. It’s very correlated with wealth of the patient. Wealthy people can afford well paid happy doctors and nurses, nor stressed out overworked cynical disgruntled cogs in the hmo machine. Ymmv
> they aren't complaining about quality of care when they get it.
This isn't true. Plenty complaints about long waits for appointments, rushed appointments, not getting proper medicine. My wife recently couldn't get a specific potentially more effective medicine covered (it was in the end) because the insurance company wanted the dr to give her something cheaper.
Most people would still prefer going through all that bureaucracy than paying $10k out of pocket though. Your slight convenience doesn’t make it a good idea. You can still go to a private hospital in the US and feel free to pay out of pocket.
"Health insurance in my country is so obtuse and convoluted I would rather not put my basic medical needs in there, and rather just pay out of pocket for it separately."
Not that strange at all, when you consider that one of the primary reasons it's become so obtuse and convoluted is precisely due to the inherent complications of paying for routine services through the model of a risk pool.
The common conception of health care has moved beyond just remedying severe illness or injury, but rules and incentives are still calcified around treating it that way.
I have no idea why - and I'm someone who has worked in the health insurance industry - it was ever allowed to be called insurance in the first place. It has only ever resembled insurance in the vaguest possible way (HDHPs are probably the closest thing to actual insurance now).
Insurers like to take all the benefits of the insurance model, and as few of the downsides as possible.
I mean, look at the model of "first you have to meet your deductible, then you have a co-pay which is your 'contribution' to your health care, but also you have to pay coinsurance which is the your portion of your costs after the deductible".
It's a partial amortization scheme for healthcare with a little "benefit of group negotiation" thrown in (when it doesn't actually cost "you" more to go through insurance than out of pocket... "you" because some people, like Martin Shkreli, make money pushing the illusion that somehow insurance companies are magical money fairies who pay providers with something other than the premiums you and I pay, either directly or through an employer...).
The way to have a better healthcare system would be to use insurance for its intended purpose of dealing with catastrophic contingencies, and restore a direct-pay market for routine services.
Well, apart from not being a fan of the cargo-cult mentality you're applying here, I don't agree with the premise that solution you're implicitly advocating does work very well everywhere else.
The insurance model is broken because of political intervention in the first place. I'm not about to give political institutions de facto monopoly power over the most personal and private aspects of my life just to mitigate a public problem that they created to begin with. I want to cut out the middlemen entirely, not just shift dependence to a different, often less trustworthy, set of middlemen.
There's also the non-typical BSE - or BSE that is spontaneous. Typically this only affects older cattle.
The interesting thing is that for other prions like scapie and CWD are thought to spread through body fluids and feces and be available in the environment for years. But I don't see any of these concerns listed with BSE. Makes me wonder how much is guess work and how much is confirmed about any of them. But I suspect environmental contamination could be a possible vector. If spread through stuff like urine and feces, CAFOs could be a significant source. This could be a problem if they can be infected for years before symptoms arise, while time to market is 18 months.
I think your theory makes a lot of sense if you reverse the causality: Mammals have evolved to not engage in cannibalism to avoid prions. Other diseases as well, of course.
Also not a biologist, but as I understand it: Every living creature synthesizes proteins. Every time you synthesize a protein, there is a tiny tiny chance that it synthesizes "backward". Backward proteins are physically incompatible with "forward" proteins, and also increase the risk that more proteins synthesize backward. It leads to a cascade of errors where lots of proteins synthesize backward and the cells and internal structures can no longer function. It's like you fall apart due to half your Lego bricks being upside-down. And, this is all a statistical probability that could occur in any moment to any living organism.
The evolutionary defenses are to break apart all incoming proteins and reassemble them yourself, and have a cycle of life that starts new organisms from scratch. Large carnivores can't hope to break apart every incoming protein, though. So, basically our lifespans and reproduction method of growing up from a single cell are the evolutionary defenses against the natural phenomenon of prions. But yes, prion disease is probably what forces all higher foodchain animals to avoid cannibalism.
This is not at all how it works. Prion diseases are not at all to do with synthesising proteins 'backwards'. It's entirely because of one protein found in the brain which has a very stable misfolded form which will induce other copies of it to misfold as well (and this misfolds all stick together into something the body struggles to break down, which is what eventually causes the damage). It's not something that can happen to just any protein (lots of other proteins do misfold or are otherwise not made correctly, all the time. But they don't induce other proteins to misfold and the body can easily break them down or otherwise get rid of them)
(in fact, the misfolded form is so stable it can survive cooking, autoclaving(!), sitting in soil for years, and digestion. The main reason it's not a big threat is that it needs to somehow get from the environment into the brain, generally via the gut, which is not a particularly easy process for an inert clump of amino acids: a significant percentage of UK residents actually have detectable levels of this prion in their gut already, but only a very small fraction will develop the disease)
So that has raised an interesting question in my mind. But as far as I know the only significant case of prion disease amongst human beings, excluding CJD which seems to be generically determined, was the instance of Kuru among the Papau New Guinea tribes; however we know other societies practiced cannibalism at a certain scale such as the Aztecs in which people were eating other people all over the place, yet we don't have widespread evidence of Kuru.
Is there something distinct about Brian tissue which puts it at a higher risk for prion disease formation?
Just a bystander shooting from the hip, but does the fact that brain nerve cells aren't recycled and rebuilt but live as long as the person does mean they are more prone to accumulating bad proteins?
Other tissue like skin or muscle that regularly break down and regrow would offer a lot more opportunity for the body to filter out the prions, but once in the brain cells, there's nothing for them to do but accumulate.
It's because the prion protein is in the brain. As in, there is basically only one protein in mammals which actually has this problem (that we know of), it's not a general issue with proteins. The variants which exist are essentially because of the small variations in this protein across species, or specific inheritable mutations which make sponteneous formation of the misfolded form more likely.
(this protein, by the way, is not essential for life, but lacking it seems to slow brain development in mice)
A thing eating dead instances of its same family is already a near ideal situation for passing disease, no fancy evolutionary mechanism required. Frankly, hard to imagine a better one.
If mammals needed a ‘anti cannibalism’ evolutionary mechanism there are plenty of other mechanisms - like disgust responses - that would actually prevent disease.
DevOps like Agile was then hacked to pieces and had its corpse paraded around by sleazy consultants and idiotic management that was told "you can save all this money on all your infrastructure people by making your developers do all the ops stuff to." And who doesn't like saving money on those useless crusty old system administrators that don't seem to do anything except whine for "more disk space" if they were so smart they would've prevented that outage la da t week where the logging volume filled up.
Finally the toolmakers sold the idea that DevOps was something you could buy. Just like the vendors convinced management that buy purchasing Jira you were now agile, now if you have a CI/CD pipeline you are now doing DevOps. But you still can't release without getting approval from the release committee and you can't actually provision a new host in the cloud until you have filled out the requsite approval forms, but key for some reason we uprooted our monolith and threw it on kubenetes so we are doing DevOps.
It really feels like relieving the Agile cycle all over again in every detail. Just wish I could figure out the next big fad so I could get in on this money printer.
PS. If you use the term DevSecOps or DevSecFinOps unironiclly your living proof the Dunning-Kruger effect.