Every industry is full of technical hills that people plant their flag on. What is yours?
They should stop teaching the OSI model and stick to the DOD TCP/IP model
In the world of computer networking you are constantly hammered about the OSI model and how computer communication fits into that model. But outside of specific legacy uses, nothing runs the OSI suite, everything runs TCP/IP.
Don’t you mean the OSI model? ISO means International Standards Organisation lol
I’m sticking that to autocorrect.
WELCOME TO THE OFFICE OF SECRET INTELIGENCE SAMPSON!
[Co. Gathers jumps out of the plane without a parachute]
I don’t discount your point but coming from the support side, it’ll cause confusion to call it a layer 6 issue than a layer 8 issue. Layer 0 issues won’t change at least, especially as long as sales gets in the middle of project planning.
Understanding that other protocols are possible is important. Sure, reality doesn’t fit neatly into the OSI model, but it gives you a conceptual idea of everything that goes into a networking stack.
So does the TCP/IP model and that is what systems actually use.
This is going to blow your mind but there are other systems out there that do not implement TCP/IP at all.
And they all have their own models to learn.
Plenty of things don’t fit into the TCP/IP model at all. Infiniband, for starters.
Does infiniband run IP?
No
It doest run CLNS either.
Doesn’t matter. The OSI model does not stipulate an OSI protocol
Thank you. Didn’t know of any non-IP network stack. Got something new to research while commuting.
Another one is fibre channel (not to be confused with just running ethernet over fiber).
Your favorite AI enabled LLM does a very, very good job of simulating language tests based on previous tests and there’s no reason at all not to use it to study and prepare.
It can write you a poem, it can’t write you a play.
It can’t write you anything that hasn’t been written a million times before, but it can give you a paragraph and tell you to find the verbs, and then mark the exercise to a shocking level of accuracy. It can explain what you did wrong and give accurate examples and details. Then you can say “I don’t get it…I still don’t get it” a hundred times and it will try and try to explain it to you, endlessly, and it will never get frustrated or impatient.
More like it can write you a poem but it won’t make you a poet.
Transparency + blur + drop shadow is peak UI design and should remain so for the foreseeable future. It provides depth, which adds visual context. Elements onscreen should not appear flat; our human predator brains are hardwired and physiologically evolved to parse depth information.
Can you give an example?
Im not him, but theres a tiny shadow underneath the cursor on most windows, probably most everything else. Buttons are slightly 3D looking to appear like they pop out.
What of, more specifically?
An image of the 3 concepts together as you deavribe.
Windows 7 is a great example.
“installing a library” should not exist as a concept. A library is either so essential that the OS needs it (and therefore it is already installed), or is not essential enough that each program can have its own copy of the library.
“But I want all my 3 programs that use this random library to be updated at the same time in case a security flaw is found in it!” Is no excuse for the millions of hours wasted looking for missing dependencies or dependencies not available for your system. If that library does have a security vulnerability your package manager should just find your 3 programs that use it and update their copy of the library.
But what if we realize that a library is so essential it should be included in the OS, but the OS is old and already running, so now we need to install it, so everyone can make use of it.
Then just install it? I don’t see what’s the issue here.
Only issue is that you said installing a library should not exist as a concept.
Not by the user. By the OS.
each program can have its own copy of the library.
Efficiency out the window…
I don’t care about 10KB or even 100KB of disk space per installed program if it saves humanity the collective millions of hours wasted on .dll/.so issues.
If your program needs libcirnfucb to run, it should be in the same directory as your program, and you are responsible for putting it there for me. No other program in my computer needs libcirnfucb, there’s no efficiency gains and now I have to go to some random website from the 90s and find where they put the damn download link and now I have to learn all about how libcirnfucb manages their versions and if I am in the correct webpage, because the project is abandonware that was formed 10 years ago and now it is in another 90s looking website that has a name completely unrelated to libcirnfucb.
I don’t care about 10KB or even 100KB of disk space
there’s no efficiency gains
Some care and there are, hence that approach. You might like snap, appimage or that works-on-my-computer-in-a-box thing called docker.
Or GoboLinux.
I work in disability support. People in my industry fail to understand the distinction between duty of care and dignity of risk. When I go home after work I can choose to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. My clients who are disabled are able to make decisions including smoking and drinking, not to mention smoking pot or watching porn. It is disgusting to intrude on someone else’s life and shit your own values all over them.
I don’t drink or smoke but that is me. My clients can drink or smoke or whatever based on their own choices and my job is not to force them to do things I want them to do so they meet my moral standards.
My job is to support them in deciding what matters to them and then help them figure out how to achieve those goals and to support them in enacting that plan.
The moment I start deciding what is best for them is the moment I have dehumanised them and made them lesser. I see it all the time but my responsibility is to treat my clients as human beings first and foremost. If a support worker treated me the way some of my clients have been treated there would have been a stabbing.
Disabled people are so often treated like children and it just sucks.
Patient autonomy!
RIP those disabled people who’s carers won’t even let them nut, and who definitely don’t have anywhere else to go.
Like you, I tend to feel that in general, people need to stop trying to force people to live the way they think is best. Unless there is a very real, very serious impact on others (“I enjoy driving through town while firing a machine gun randomly out my car windows”), people should be permitted to choose how to live as far as possible. Flip side is that they gotta accept potential negative consequences of doing so. Obviously, there’s gonna be some line to draw on what consitutes “seriously affecting others”, and there’s going to be different people who have different positions on where that line should be. Does maybe spreading disease because you’re not wearing a facemask during a pandemic count? What about others breathing sidestream smoke from a cigarette smoker in a restaurant? But I tend towards a position that society should generally be less-restrictive on what people do as long as the harm is to themselves.
However.
I would also point out that in some areas, this comes up because someone is receiving some form of aid. Take food stamps. Those are designed to make it easy to obtain food, but hard to obtain alcohol. In that case, the aid is being provided by someone else. I think that it’s reasonable for those other people to say “I am willing to buy you food, but I don’t want to fund your alcohol habit. I should have the ability to make that decision.” That is, they chose to provide food aid because food is a necessity, but alcohol isn’t.
I think that there’s a qualitative difference between saying “I don’t want to pay to buy someone else alcohol” and “I want to pass a law prohibiting someone from consuming alcohol that they’ve bought themselves.”
I disagree with restricting alcohol for food stamps. In fact, it shouldn’t be food stamps, it should be cash. When you attach all these requirements and drug testing and restrictions you are destroying the autonomy of the person you are claiming to help.
It is like with housing. Many of the housing programs available require drug tests, job seeking documentation, separating men and women, and so on. In some cases this can make a little sense, given that men are much more likely than women to be domestic abusers, but other cases make less sense. If someone uses drugs to cope with their life and then you offer housing only if they stop the thing that is helping them cope they will not be helped, they will be harmed. They will not be able to take the housing and end up off the street in a secure place building a life, they will be still on the street and still on the drugs.
If I go and work a job and get paid should my employer be able to say “I’m fine with paying you so you can have housing and food, but alcohol? No, I don’t want to pay for alcohol”? This would be insane. Your employer choosing what you can do with your money outside of work hours is authoritarian nonsense and yet when it comes to welfare or charity people think it is fine. I disagree vehemently.
If I give you money to alleviate your suffering who am I to decide how you employ that? I want you to have more money because it is fungible, you can do almost anything with money, so you can make choices. I want you to have more power to effect your life, not less.
I assume you are an American given your reference to food stamps. Where is the American spirit of independence? Of self determination? Of rugged individualism? It seems quite dead in the modern era of state capture and authoritarian oligarchy. It is a loss and a tragedy.
How are you distinguishing:
- it’s ok to treat all men as criminals who may attack women and women as victims who may be attacked so we need to keep them from fraternizing
From
- it’s not ok to try to reduce their self-destructive behaviors that are keeping them from being able to support themselves
Statistically speaking the rate of abuse from men to their partners is extremely high. I don’t know how to manage this best but it seems likely that at least some of the situations of abuse would be helped by having spaces without men in them. Does that mean we should force men and women apart? No. But how to manage that I will concede is a difficult problem.
In many cases of abuse the abuser keeps the victim close and prevents any outside contact as much as possible. Having the moment without the abuser nearby can provide an opportunity to escape which seems to provide some significant utility. On the other hand someone who is supported by their partner and actually does derive benefit from that would suffer from the separation, not to mention the suffering of the men who would theoretically be separated from their partners and kids.
I don’t have the answer, but I do see it as fundamentally different from the self destructive behaviour situation. Someone who is disabled is no less able to make bad choices. If I could be a tradie, say an electrician, and I can go to the pub after work and smoke a pack of cigarettes then the same should apply to a disabled person. Is it the best decision? No. But it is theirs.
In the same way an abused partner should be able to make the decision to stay in the abusive relationship, whether that be a good or had choice. That said, paths out from abusive relationships and from smoking should both be made available as much as is reasonably possible.
Statistically speaking the rate of abuse from men to their partners is extremely high.
No. Higher than the other direction but hardly extreme
Statistically speaking the harm from drug adficts and alcohol is is much higher
In Australia, the country I live in, roughly 1 in 4 women have experienced intimate partner violence since age 15. For men this is 1 in 14. 23% compared to 7.3% to be clear. That means that about 3 times as many women have experienced IPV than men. This includes LGBT relationships, so abusive men who abuse other men would show up as part of the men being abused statistic, as with women abusing women.
As for the harm from drug addicts and alcohol use/abuse, where does the harm come from? Surely if I am in my own home and I take a drug and while high I stay at home I am not harming anyone? If I were to hurt my partner or other people in my house that would be a possible route for harm to occur. But if I don’t drive drunk or high and I don’t hurt those immediately around me how does harm happen?
I would suggest that much of the harm around drugs comes from the criminal enterprises involved with production and supply, crime committed to fund addictive drug use, and over policing coming from having already had one interaction with police leading to petty things becoming criminal due to that interaction. Surely there are other harms, but think about how much of this would be alleviated by legalising the less harmful drugs and decriminalising the rest. The legalised ones can be produced under regulation and made safer to consume as well as being made affordable. This would kill the criminal systems around drug production and supply. For the decriminalised ones it would shift the lower towards the user, allowing users to have power over dealers and have a way out of those fairly toxic relationships.
But again, we can always talk about some other harm out there and ignore the case at hand. I would rather close the conversation with a simple statement. We do have a problem with men abusing women which is larger than all other forms of abuse. We would all benefit from this being reduced. And lastly when managing something like a shelter it is reasonable to take a few extra steps to provide a way out for women who are particularly vulnerable at that time. Should we offer that for men? Of course. But is it going to be used far more by women? Yes.
You’re confusing “way too women experience partner violence sometime in their lives” with “all men are violent criminals and need to be separated”.
While yes, a lot of drug related violence is caused by the drug war, the harm for drugs is easy to see from with a significant portion of the homeless, theft and ciolence as the worst addicts fall out of society, and ruined wasted lives. Harm for alcoholism is much more obvious and easy to see, but I’d also add all the victims of drunk driving to it’s harm
Nope. Don’t start putting caveats on aid.
You can’t buy comforts. You will live the life i think you should be accustomed to. It’s infantilising and controlling
It’s more like - I’ll help with the necessities to keep you alive. Anything extra is on you. We all have our vices but why should I pay for yours
And who decides what is or is not a necessity? Is entertainment necessary? How much? Are certain shows OK but others not? Should they be restricted to the shows that you like? What about choice? Dignity? Autonomy?
When we lessen others we inherently lessen ourselves. We have a moral duty to consider the harm from both our actions and our inactions. If you choose to not restrict someone else self determine and live their own life it is no less morally wrong than if you took that person and imprisoned them. From a position of power it is tempting to think “I don’t like this thing therefore others should not have it” but follow it through to the logical conclusion. You are binding your neighbour with the very same chains that will land upon you given time.
**It is better to be an enemy of chains than judicious in their use. **
The person donating decides what they wish to donate.
Sure, for donation, but the original context we are talking about disability services which are government funded through taxation. You don’t get to object to the military budget because you are a pacifist, you have to pay regardless. In that context the person receiving the service is entitled to that service by law. They access the service and the service providers are supposed to do their jobs without personal judgement getting in the way. My issue is with providers not doing their jobs because of this type of judgement. I am not donating my time when working with a client, they (or their allocation) are paying me to work.
How much of your income do you want to give to buy alcohol for strangers? Would you donate a large amount of your money to an aid fund that spent 10%? 50%? 80%? on booze? What about meth? Guns? Nazi memorabilia? What it’s only 5% on Nazi stuff, 95% on food?
I’m being a dick but they have a fair point in why people put caveats on aid. I’m a fan of UBI to some degree personally, because I think people as a rule should be trusted with making their own decisions, but I do like choosing where the value of labor goes too.
You might personally think it sucks, but it’s how it rolls. I live in a country where social system payments are straight up monetary amounts. If you are eligible to receive aid, you receive it. How you manage your affairs is none of the government’s business .
There are caveats, such as the income management system, but for the most part that’s actually opt-in and they’re reviewing junking the entire concept as it was originally introduced very very badly by an administration that attempted to leverage vulnerable groups
My taxpayer dollars go to support people doing their peopley things as they choose, as adults. And I’m actually ok with that. It’s a safety net, not a leash. Poverty isn’t a moral position
I mean, sure. But we were talking about disabled people, and disabled people possibly can’t buy anything for themselves for reasons out of their control. You’re essentially imposing a different standard of life on them just based on that.
And maybe that’s not wrong - you’re not the only one that takes this stance - but it does deserve pointing out.
(And with, like, porn it doesn’t even apply. That’s mostly for free)
For any non-trivial software project, spending time on code quality and a good architecture is worth the effort. Every hour I spend on that saves me two hours when I have to fix bugs or implement new features.
Years ago I had to review code from a different team and it was an absolute mess. They (and our boss) defended it with “That way they can get it done faster. We can clean up after the initial release”. Guess what, that initial release took over three years instead of the planned six months.
The joys of agile programming…
When agile works, it actually works pretty well.
99% of the agile projects i’ve been in were waterfall in disguise (fragile for short).What they did was far beyond “agile”. They didn’t care for naming conventions, documentation, not committing commented-out code, using existing solutions (both in-house and third-party) instead of reinventing the wheel…
In that first review I had literally hundreds of comments that each on their own would be a reason to reject the pull request.
Sounds like you had a bad experience with the failed attempt at establishing agile development methods - sorry to hear that.
I just want to encourage you to give it another go with other developers that are more experienced with the methodology - in my company we’re working successfully that way for over a decade.
[edited because the initial comment was unkind]
In my team we manage 2 software components. 1 of them (A) has 2 devs, the other (B) approximately 5.
Every time a feature needs to be added, B complains that it’s going to take forever, while A is done in a fraction of the time.
The difference? B is a clusterfuck of a codebase that they have no time to refactor because they run low on time to implement the features.
I work in A, but I’m not going to steal the credit, when I entered the company, A already had a much cleaner codebase. It’s not that me and my partner are 10x better than the ones working in B, they just have uglier code to deal with.
I can’t comprehend why management doesn’t see the reason A needs half the devs to do the job faster.
I can’t comprehend why management doesn’t see the reason
Management cannot see beyond the next quarter, it’s a genetic precondition of the species.
People are idiots and it’s the designers’ duty to remove opportunities for an idiot to hurt themselves up and just short of impacting function.
Cleaning, organizing, and documentation are high priorities.
Every job I’ve worked at has had mountains of “The last guy didn’t…” that you walk into and it’s always a huge pain in the ass. They didn’t throw out useless things, they didn’t bother consolidating storage rooms, and they never wrote down any of their processes, procedures, or rationals. I’ve spent many hours at each job just detangling messes because the other person was to busy or thought it unimportant and didn’t bother to spend the time.
Make it a priority, allocate the time, and think long-term.
I’m so hot for you right now.
Starting a new job soon, and I’m paying for some holes in documentation as I prep my offboarding documentation for my current team. Definitely making it a priority to do better going forward! Being lazy in the moment is nice but the “stitch in time” adage is definitely true
Don’t fucking paste content from a word doc into your IDE. Some people I work with think it’s a time saver.
Do it via an actual text editor like Notepad++ to clear out all the bullshit.
I think you can do ctrl shift v in some programs to strip down to text only
Maybe not technical, but teaching is weird.
If people aren’t having fun/engaged they’re not learning much. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. It’s so frustrating to come across someone who writes the standards you’re supposed to follow and they are the most boring and fake teacher you’ve experienced.
Weird i haven’t seen this one yet: the cloud is just someone else’s computers.
…which are much more secure than yours ?
Riiight… downtime in the big clouds is totally not a thing and databreaches unheard of.
They have tighter security because they are bigger targets.
Hardly a hot take really…
OP didn’t really ask for a hot take…
It was kind of implied, though.
How do you die on a hill if nobody’s fighting you? Is it just a hill suicide? That wasn’t in any war I’ve read about. I guess Life of Brian had something a bit like that.
Dying on the hill doesn’t mean it has to be controversial or a “hot take” IMO, but whatever.
It is, but I’m ready to officially throw in the towel and embrace the fact that running your own hardware is not much more than a hobby these days. I’ve preached and preached the value of multi or hybrid cloud, only for the people with money to pour it down the same hole time and time again.
I’ve always said IT is essentially an entirely CYA driven industry. Having someone to blame is more valuable for them than uptime, and if they can show their outages, even if the numbers suck, was not their fault (easy to do when all your competitors are down at the same time), it’s all good…
Update- lol, YouTube is currently down.
Geopolitics is kind of coming to the rescue, since it’s bad if your server is subject to a hostile power’s laws. Although it remains to be seen if there’s fundamental change, or just what we call in Canada “maplewashing”.
There is no goddamn reason to continue to use magneto ignition in aircraft engines. I’ve been a Rotax authorized service technician for 13 years, I have never seen the digital CDI installed on a Rotax 900 series engine fail in any way, and you’ve still got two. Honestly I believe a CDI module is more reliable and less prone to failure than a mechanical magneto. The only reason why we’re still using pre-WWII technology in modern production aircraft engines is societal rot.
Workplace safety is quickly turning from a factual and risk-based field into a vibes-based field, and that’s a bad thing for 95% of real-world risks.
To elaborate a bit: the current trend in safety is “Safety Culture”, meaning “Getting Betty to tell Alex that they should actually wear that helmet and not just carry it around”. And at that level, that’s a great thing. On-the-ground compliance is one of the hardest things to actually implement.
But that training is taking the place of actual, risk-based training. It’s all well and good that you feel comfortable talking about safety, but if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re not actually making things more safe. This is also a form of training that’s completely useless at any level above the worksite. You can’t make management-level choices based on feeling comfortable, you need to actually know some stuff.
I’ve run into numerous issues where people feel safe when they’re not, and feel at risk when they’re safe. Safety Culture is absolutely important, and feeling safe to talk about your problems is a good thing. But that should come AFTER being actually able to spot problems.
I’m always in favour of actually testing safety stuff.
Does that fall arrest line actually work? Go walk over to that way until you can’t.
Can this harness hold you without cutting circulation off to your legs? Go sit in it for an hour and see.The mining industry emphasizes safely culture, just like what you said, and a lot of it is focused on wearing PPE.
There are still too many preventable deaths and accidents.
I think safety is talked about and vibe-based to please investors.
AI is a fad and when it collapses, it’s going to do more damage than any percieved good it’s had to date.
The issue that I take with AI is that it’s having a similar effect on ignorance that the Internet created but worse. It’s information without understanding. Imagine a highschool drop out that is a self proclaimed genius and a Google wizard, that is AI, at least at the moment.
Since people imagine AI as the super intelligence from movies they believe that it’s some kind of supreme being. It’s really not. It’s good at a few things and you should still take it’s answers with skepticism and proof read it before copy/paste it’s results into something.
I can believe that LLMs might wind up being a technical dead end (or not; I could also imagine them being a component of a larger system). My own guess is that language, while important to thinking, won’t be the base unit of how thought is processed the way it is on current LLMs.
Ditto for diffusion models used to generate images today.
I can also believe that there might be surges and declines in funding. We’ve seen that in the past.
But I am very confident that AI is not, over the long term, going to go away. I will confidently state that we will see systems that will use machine learning to increasingly perform human-like tasks over time.
And I’ll say with lower, though still pretty high confidence, that the computation done by future AI will very probably be done on hardware oriented towards parallel processing. It might not look like the parallel hardware today. Maybe we find that we can deal with a lot more sparseness and dedicated subsystems that individually require less storage. Yes, neural nets approximate something that happens in the human brain, and our current systems use neural nets. But the human brain runs at something like a 90 Hz clock and definitely has specialized subsystems, so it’s a substantially-different system from something like Nvidia’s parallel compute hardware today (1,590,000,000 Hz and homogenous hardware).
I think that the only real scenario where we have something that puts the kibosh on AI is if we reach a consensus that superintelligent AI is an unsolveable existential threat (and I think that we’re likely to still go as far as we can on limited forms of AI while still trying to maintain enough of a buffer to not fall into the abyss).
EDIT: That being said, it may very well be that future AI won’t be called AI, and that we think of it differently, not as some kind of special category based around a set of specific technologies. For example, OCR (optical character recognition) software or speech recognition software today both typically make use of machine learning — those are established, general-use product categories that get used every day — but we typically don’t call them “AI” in popular use in 2025. When I call my credit card company, say, and navigate a menu system that uses a computer using speech recognition, I don’t say that I’m “using AI”. Same sort of way that we don’t call semi trucks or sports cars “horseless carriages” in 2025, though they derive from devices that were once called that. We don’t use the term “labor-saving device” any more — I think of a dishwasher or a vacuum cleaner as distinct devices and don’t really think of them as associated devices. But back when they were being invented, the idea of machines in the household that could automate human work using electricity did fall into a sort of bin like that.
I’m a bit more pessimistic. I fear that that LLM-pushers calling their bullshit-generators “AI” is going to drag other applications with it. Because I’m pretty sure that when LLM’s all collapse in a heap of unprofitable e-waste and takes most of the stockmarket with it, the funding and capital for the rest of AI is going to die right along with LLMs.
And there are lots of useful AI applications in every scientific field, data interpretation with AI is extremely useful, and I’m very afraid it’s going to suffer from OpenAI’s death.
React sucks. I’m sorry, I know it’s popular, but for the love of glob, can we not use a technology that results in just as much goddamn spaghetti code as its closest ancestor, jQuery? (That last bit is inflammatory. I don’t care. React components have no opinionated structure imposed on them, just like jQuery.)
I much prefer VueJS, much more intuitive and clean.
And you favorite poison is?
I like that you called it poison because all options are bad, but I prefer the one I consider the least bad: Angular.
