Been through this recently in a fairly large enterprise
We have some in house software which runs in k8s. Total throughput peaks at about 1mbit a second of control traffic - it's controlling some other devices which are on dedicated hardware. Total of 24GB of ram.
The software team say it needs to run across 3 different servers for resilience purposes.
The VM team want to use neutronix as their VM platform, so they can live migrate one VM to another.
They insist on 25gbit networking, and for resilience purposes that needs to be mlagged
The network team also have to have multiple switches and routers, again for resilience.
So rather than having 3 $1000 laptops running bare metal kubes hanging off a pair of $500 1G switches eating maybe 200W, we have a $140k BOM sucking up 2kW.
When something goes wrong all those layers of resilience will no doubt fight each other. The hardware drops, so the VM freezes as it restored onto another host, so K8s moves the workloads, then the VM comes back, the k8s gets confused (maybe? I don't know how k8s works).
It's all needlessly overspecced costing 30 times as much as it should.
But from each individual team it makes sense. They don't want to be blamed if it doesn't work, they don't have to find the money. It's different departments.
One of my favorite bits of hardware is a UPS. I’ve played with several over the years, from fancy server-grade rack-mount APC stuff to inexpensive edge stuff. Without exception, downtime is increased by use of a UPS. I used to plug a server with redundant PSUs into the UPS and the wall so it could ride out UPS glitches.
Even today, a UPS that turns itself back on after power goes out long enough to drain the battery and is then restored is somewhat exotic. Amusingly, even the new UniFi UPSes, which are clearly meant to be shoved in a closet somewhere, supposedly turn off and stay off when the battery drains according to forum posts. There are no official docs, of course.
Sounds like crappy UPSes. Even the cheap old used eBay Eaton UPSes I have in my homelab have a setting for "Auto restart" and the factory default setting is "enabled".
But even rackmount UPSes are more of an "edge" sort of solution. A data center UPS takes up at least a room.
I assume that datacenters UPSes are better, but I’ve never used one except as a consumer of its output.
But I’ve had problems with UPSes that advertise auto-restart but don’t actually ship with it enabled. And that fancy APC unit was sold by fancy Dell sales people and supported directly by real humans at APC, and it would still regularly get mad, start beeping, and turn off its output despite its battery being fully charged and the upstream power being just fine (and APC’s techs were never able to figure it out either).
> I assume that datacenters UPSes are better [...]
I don't know about specific datacenter models, but in our colocation there are humans available 24/7. So the UPS might not start after failure, but there's a human to figure it out.
Most (all?) decent datacenters also have generators on site, and the intent is that the UPS will never run out of charge. So the fully-discharged case is an error and it might be intentional to require intervention to recover.
Yeah, some people treat UPSes as "backup power" but that's not really what they're intended for. Their intended purpose is to bridge the gap during interruptions... either to an alternative power source, or to a powered-off state.
Sure, but when you stick a UPS in the closet to power your network or security cameras or whatever for a little while if there is a power interruption, you expect:
a) If the power is out too long for your UPS (or you have solar and batteries and they discharge overnight or whatever) that the system will turn back on when the power recovers, and
b) You will not have extra bonus outages just because the UPS is in a bad mood.
I completely agree with B. But alas, people love buying shitty cheap UPSes.
But A is along the lines of the misconception that I'm referring to... There should be no such thing as "the power being out too long for your UPS". A UPS isn't there to give you a little while to ignore the problem, it's there to give you time to address it. Either by switching to another source of power, or to power off the equipment.
Now, the reason that every UPS that supports auto-restart has it as a configurable option, is because you often don't want to do this for many reasons, e.g.:
* a low SOC battery could not guarantee a minimum runtime for safe shutdown during a repeated outage
* a catastrophic failure (because the battery shouldn't be dead) could be an indication of other issues that need to be addressed before power on
* powering on the equipment may require staggering to prevent inrush current overload
The whole use case of "I'm using the UPS to run my equipment during an outage" is kind of an abuse of their purpose. It's commonly done, and I've done it myself. But it's not what they're for.
But also, if you want a UPS that auto-restarts -- they exist -- but you get what you pay for.
The funniest thing about huge enterprises is that they often have processes so convoluted and restrictive for everything, that getting stuff done by the book is basically impossible, so people get creative with the limitations and we often end up with the sketchiest solutions in existence.
I hope the words 'web server hosted in Excel VBA' illustrate the magnitude of horrors that can emerge in these situations.
I saw an entire physical switch configured for bridging VLANs. It was even labeled as such. 802.1q is hard and confusing if you don't know what you're doing.
I'm a power user and I've used linux for over 25 years. My corporate windows machine is total trash and completely unsuitable for any power users, either because its windows or because corporate locks it down so much it's barely more functional than a chromebook, I don't really care.
Pro Life party? The one that just killed thousands of people in an unprovoked attack and then threatened millions more but only held off because high gas prices might lose them some support at home?
I am certainly not defending or supporting that title. Republicans are generally in favor of stricter abortion laws and catholics generally prioritize abortion over any other issue. So many catholics vote republican, but now that comes at the risk of distorting the actual catechism of the church. A challenging moral question for catholics.
I think you may be reading more into my comment than I wrote. I was only talking about what we are seeing in the Show HN. I have no baseline to compare it to so all I can see is a map of the oceans with some areas red and some areas blue.
a) published data tends to see corrections from sensors and methodology which take several years to work out the fine details. (This isn't an attack this is science) Which means always take yesterday's numbers with more scepticism than 2yr ago.
(This is making no statement of any data you're looking at or any trend you claim to see)
b) a field dominated by modelling needs data to back it up, otherwise the conversation would be, "Why is the LHC failing to find strong theory which is absolutely there" vs "I wonder if the modelling is correct based on..."
This is a certain level of maturity that certain sciences are only starting to reach after playing in the ballpark of "let's go model my idea and make a press release which will just so happen to help my funding".
Yes sea level temps are rising, absolute numbers are still difficult to come by though and last UN summary doc I read still put things at 5C global average over a century. (Yes still horrifically catastrophic for the wrong people, but I'm also not in charge)
I doubt it has anything to do with data-quality, I'd be surprised if even 10% of climate denialists have studied the numbers. Remember >20% of US citizens are still creationists, a lot of people aren't emotionally ready to believe scary things, and maybe they never will be.
I guess you're trying to draw a false-equivalency between taking a problem extra seriously and denying/perpetuating it? However taking a problem too seriously doesn't harm people, if you want to wear a mask out of an abundance of caution you won't kill anybody else.
Also nobody believed the world was going to end in two days, that feels like a disingenuous talking point. If somebody literally believed the world would end in < 10 years they'd likely quit their job, spend all their savings, etc.
If your point is that you've met ~15 individuals in your life who were obnoxious/self-righteous/unlikeable about their attempts to make the world better -- congrats every movement has that. But it can't distract from the fact that one thing is true and the other is false, and anybody who tries to focus more on the stereotypes of the individuals in a movement than whether it's true or not is only creating noise.
No I'm talking about proper healthy science not blind trust. Please don't confuse discussion with argument it's disingenuous and best I can say is look inwards.
Jesus Christ, dude. That was a disaster movie by the same guy that brought us Independence Day and 2012, based on a book by a radio host best known for possibly facilitating the Heaven's Gate mass suicide by feeding rumors a UFO was following the Hale-Bopp comet, and a writer who has peddled personal tales of alien abductions for 40 years. Not exactly a reliable central tendency measure of what real people feared.
This has to be one of the stupidest false equivalences I've ever seen.
Indeed, there is quite a lot of data against (Biblical/young-earth) creationism.
Everything from "humans' chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes, and we see those two other chromosomes still present in chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos", which argues for common descent, to "when zircon crystals form, they accept radioactive uranium but violently reject the lead that it decays to, and modern zircon crystals have lead-uranium ratios indicating that they formed billions of years ago", arguing for an old age of the universe. And many, many, many, many other pieces of evidence.
Chromosomal similarity argues for solid engineering principles just as much as it does common decent. Do you have any data to suggest that the almighty did not take a working chromosome 2 (made in their own image, perhaps), and reuse it in these other animals you reference?
> Do you have any data to suggest that the almighty did not take a working chromosome 2 (made in their own image, perhaps), and reuse it in these other animals you reference?
Why would an almighty god leave markers in our Chromosome 2 that look like they are from chromosomes 2a/2b in other apes?
It's not just that there's a huge genetic similarities between the chromosomes. Which there are! Chromosome 2 also has an extra, deactivated centromere, which was used in the copying of the previous chromosome 2b, before the fusion. And, remember that chromosomes typically have telomeres at their ends to keep them from fraying apart. In a fusion event you'd expect some telomeres from the end of the ingredient chromosomes to end up in the middle of the resulting fused chromosome. And this is what we see.
Of course God could have created our chromosome in such a way that it looks very much like the fusion of 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor with chimpanzees, down to the addition of an extra centromere and telomere region. But why would he?
But, I've also got to say, man, please don't be surprised if I don't respond much. I have no offense intended towards you, but from my perspective, arguing with a young earth creationist is about as productive as arguing with a flat earther. There are about 6 orders of magnitude of difference in age between an Earth that's about 6k years old and 4 billion, and those differences should be readily apparent all over the natural world. And they are! We see an incredible wealth of evidence for an old universe.
But... well, horse and water and all that. I can't expect to change your mind any more than I'd expect to change a flat-earther's mind.
I get that you don’t understand why a creator might do things they way they might have done. I don’t either. But surely you admit your own lack of understanding is not a scientific proof point?
If I said “I don’t understand why the big bang happened”, would that be evidence it didn’t?
Which is why I contest anyone who makes claims like “smart people like me know that Science says the earth is N years old and everyone who disagrees is too dumb to understand these indisputable facts”.
Ok. Not really sure what you’re getting at here tbh. But I assume you have read some paper that said that this tree had some isotope of some material, and you’ve taken that to mean the earth is older than 6,000 years?
No, you have data that you’ve interpreted to mean that the trees are older than 6,000 years old. What is that data, and why have you interpreted it in that way?
It's not faith when a bunch of different people all did the homework and came up with the same answers. Especially when they're all part of a system that rewards new discoveries, and they did the homework in very different ways.
There are mountains (both literal and metaphorical) of evidence for an old earth. The only evidence for a young earth is a book which contradicts its own creation story in the first two chapters.
No, most of these people consciously or otherwise, just want/need to be contrarians. Look at flat Earthers. There is no way any sane person would say the earth is flat.
Please don't bring up another thing started by idiot scientists for a laugh to laugh at stupid people. You have no idea what it's like dealing with the "just open your eyes" and "what else are they hiding" tier of pseudo-intellectualism enabled by nu-media.
There are reasons to be sceptical which are set in reason and it's worth not throwing that out with the bath water. Even if the bath water is full of low iq bitchute comments...
Because ads are cancerous, it may make you a few dollars, it massively reduces the usage of the internet, it eats resources (energy, time) from the world, it helps breaks privacy, it continues to paint the normality of the internet as a cesspit
If you are worried about apple being compelled to do something, then they can do that at the OS level rather than something obvious in the
I think this is simply updating some api call which no longer works properly, coupled with the terrible "changelogs" that are the norm on the app store. Someone down thread mentioned certificate rollover.
A sensible changelog would be "update expired certificate", or "fix integration with ios 26.2", or "patch security issue"
An actual changelog would be "we're bringing you ever more great new improvements"
Here's the latest Audible one:
> At Audible, we're always making updates and improvements to make your listening experience better.
> If you're experiencing issues, please reach out to customer services. For feedback or suggestions contact us at audible.co.uk/help
This is the same every time, because these changelogs are meaningless.
The breaking point with me that caused me to de-google myself was finding out that Google was buying Mastercard records in order to cross-reference them with Android phone data. That shit is not okay.
So no compelling here. The police asked for it and google gave it, either for free or in exchange for money. They didn't say "no" to the police, they didn't wait for a court order.
The bad guy here is google. And the people that champion data collection by private companies because of free market == good.
In that case, the main bad guy was the police who didn't bother to do even the most basic investigating after "check Google's GPS records to see who was at the house" including "Check Google's GPS records to see how how long they were there" which would have shown them this was a drive by, but yeah Google is absolutely a villain
We have some in house software which runs in k8s. Total throughput peaks at about 1mbit a second of control traffic - it's controlling some other devices which are on dedicated hardware. Total of 24GB of ram.
The software team say it needs to run across 3 different servers for resilience purposes.
The VM team want to use neutronix as their VM platform, so they can live migrate one VM to another.
They insist on 25gbit networking, and for resilience purposes that needs to be mlagged
The network team also have to have multiple switches and routers, again for resilience.
So rather than having 3 $1000 laptops running bare metal kubes hanging off a pair of $500 1G switches eating maybe 200W, we have a $140k BOM sucking up 2kW.
When something goes wrong all those layers of resilience will no doubt fight each other. The hardware drops, so the VM freezes as it restored onto another host, so K8s moves the workloads, then the VM comes back, the k8s gets confused (maybe? I don't know how k8s works).
It's all needlessly overspecced costing 30 times as much as it should.
But from each individual team it makes sense. They don't want to be blamed if it doesn't work, they don't have to find the money. It's different departments.
reply