How Big Companies Are Using Kubernetes?
Not entirely accurate. Query results can change due to commands changing the state but it just mustn't impact the query itself. Query the time twice in a row does not change the query but the answer does change (since in a row means sequential, then, by definition, they are not at the same time).
Queries can be repeated; they are safe and idempotent. (That is to say asking a query a second time doesn’t change the answer.)
I'm not on the monolith-first side. I mostly take the unix philosophy to heart. I think something in the middle is best. Strong boundaries between small services with decoupled sources but potentially tightly coupled deployments. It's far easier to refactor a small services to operate differently than it is to refactor a huge monolith that might/probably will incorporate lots of coupling at multiple levels/layers.
While the bulk of my contacts lean toward the monolith-first approach, it is by no means unanimous.
Tab characters are not used for indentation.
Actually, no. Do not do this. Secrets should be provided by configuration files mounted for the process during startup from a secure, encrypted source.
Store config in the environment
The world is much better than in the past and it is still awful.
you could only talk about probabilities of certain outcomes occurring, rather than knowing what would result from a particular setup
Use slash, not dash. e.g. release/* hotfix/*
release-*, or hotfix-*
We need a much broader and more thoughtful discussion about what it means if political ideology turns out to be nothing like what we actually thought it was. Scientists working in this new field tend towards the conclusion that the new research should make us more tolerant, not less, of political difference—not to mention a whole lot more humble about our own deeply held beliefs.
"It's not that conservative people are more fearful, it's that fearful people are more conservative,"
Republicans were using the right amygdala, the center of the brain's threat response system. Democrats, in contrast, were using the insula, involved in internal monitoring of one's feelings.
Fairness might actually mean equal happiness, not equal distribution.
I asked how we might redistribute for it to be fair. They all agreed we should each get an equal number. So far, so predictable: fairness means equality.
I believe our universe is not _just_ an infinite expanse but an infinite depth. In other words, this is no smallest thing. An indirect consequence being that every moment of existence has a nondeterminate immediate future. For everything we can know about the future, there is at least something related we can not know. At best, it’s estimates and probabilities. Not necessarily random, but cumulatively they are effectively infinitely chaotic. Probabilistic models and estimations can provide insight into a likely scenario but can never provide certainty. Welcome to our universe.
Think about a like circle. A simple concept of a point and a radius. But the ratio of the radius to the circumference is irrational/infinite. So to know the exact radius means a precise circumference is unknowable and to know an exact circumference means a precise radius is unknowable. Even such a simple concept and seemly so crucial to so much of our universe is unknowable. Extrapolate that to anything and everything in the breath and depth of the universe. Irrationality abounds making the future nondeterministic.
Future events exist, she said, they just don’t exist now.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the entropy of universe will be larger. That's assuming we know everything about the universe. The entropy of black holes decreases over time. Maybe most of the mass of the universe is locked away in black holes and the universe, as a whole, is decreasing entropy. If a scrabbled egg fell into a black hole, does it unscramble? No. But it's entropy will decrease over time.
why the entropy of the universe will be larger tomorrow than it is today
Because time doesn't exist. Cause and effect happen at some speed. The memory of the cause and witnessing the outcome is how we perceive the passage of time. If cause and effect can happen faster than the speed of light, then it would be possible for us to visually perceive effects happening "before" causes. But that's only a consequence of the speed at which our eyes process information, i.e. the speed of light. If we have a sense that can perceive superluminally, we will still witness cause followed by effect and our passage of time would be altered accordingly.
why time appears to move in only one direction
It depends. Does "definite" mean absolutely definite or can it mean highly probable? Anyone can pose a philosophical argument that even our existence isn't definite. But there's little practical use in the absolutism argument. So if we suppose "definite" simple means highly probably, we can most definitely know facts about the future. We can calculate with an incredibly high degree of accuracy where satellites will be tomorrow. Even our minds can foresee the future. I can decide now that in 30s I will say or do something specific and I can follow on that through with a very high degree of confidence.
there can be no definite facts of the matter about the future
Denying the "reality" of time does not allow for the skirting of the nature of change. Change does not depend on time. Time is _simply_ the perception or and meaning applied to change. Imagine there was no such thing as memory. There would be no perception of time yet things would still change. A tree would still grow but then what are its rings? Tree rings are the record/memory of change. We associate that change to time passing but that's just our way of assigning a uniform meaning/unit to change. We could have just assigned tree growth to ring-units, but then the units wouldn't be uniform unit from species to species. But they are still a unit of "time". They _represent_ the change.
Time is real. This might also fall into the "duh" category for people unfamiliar with the current frontiers of theoretical physics. But there were some good reasons why some physicists began thinking time might not be fundamental to reality. Instead, they began to explore how time might be emergent. That would mean time comes out of some deeper level of structure that exists entirely without anything like duration, past or future. But for Unger and Smolin, denying the reality of time allows physicists to skirt the nature of change on its deepest level.
Then it isn't "identical". Just say it "is _almost_ identical ... with one difference"!
Sucralose is identical to sucrose (cane sugar), with one exception
No it isn't. The breach has nothing to do with centralized trust. The breach is simply a fact that a service has users and services can have bugs.
it is still emblematic of the inherent flaws in centralized trust on the web.
Complete and utter nonsense. The amount of data is entirely the reason for big data processing engines. It's more expensive to move large amounts of data around, think 100TBs to PBs and more, than it is to move code to the data for processing. No one cares about GBs. GBs are minuscule data. Run your same tests on 100PB and compare that to a big data engine. Your laptop will take months just to download the data.
As a caveat, these algorithms are quite specific to graph processing, and the data sets are not large (billions of edges, but still just a few gigabytes).
We don't need a belief in determinism to react without hatred. We need more compassion and understanding in why people can behave in ways that are harmful to themselves and others. Few people act out without reason, especially when it's premeditated. We inherently act in ways that we think are beneficial to ourselves or those around us that we care about. Even when those actions are destructive and harmful for others. It's only through compassion and understanding of human nature that we can have reasoned responses to hateful acts.
Although the scale of the two catastrophes was similar, the reactions were wildly different. Nobody was striving to exact revenge on tropical storms or declare a War on Weather, so responses to Katrina could simply focus on rebuilding and preventing future disasters. The response to 9/11, Harris argues, was clouded by outrage and the desire for vengeance, and has led to the unnecessary loss of countless more lives. Harris is not saying that we shouldn’t have reacted at all to 9/11, only that a coolheaded response would have looked very different and likely been much less wasteful. “Hatred is toxic,” he told me, “and can destabilize individual lives and whole societies. Losing belief in free will undercuts the rationale for ever hating anyone.”
OMG The two are inseparable. Yes, the brain is the source of deviancy but the brain is also the source of our free will. The brain's development is influenced by experience and experience is influenced by the brain's development. They are not mutually exclusive. They are intimately entwined in a feedback loop of non-determinism.
but only if we accept that the brain, and not some airy-fairy free will, is the source of the deviancy
Utter nonsense. Believing in determinism doesn't make determinism true so the belief in it having an impact on someone's behavior is a decision by the believer to change their behavior. That doesn’t inherently disprove determinism. But imagine you convinced me, proven without a doubt, and I began to believe in determinism. It should not change my being. I enjoy everything about my life and how I live it. Determinism doesn’t change the fact that I still think and feel and I know everyone else experiences the world in a very similar way so my actions, regardless of my control over them, can and do impact others, so I can predict that my actions will remain consistent with my belief in minimizing _negative_ impacts and enhancing _positive_ impacts of my actions upon the rest of the world. Maybe that is the life determined for me so I have no control over it anyway and so such thoughts of determinism have no effect on me. And so if it’s the case that we have no free will but are still capable of being decent, contributing, beneficial, law abiding beings, then all those who are not, are, in fact, useless to our existence and should simply be eliminated. We can and should destroy them as plainly and easily as if they were trash to be disposed. And as it is determined, it must be so. After all, good is more important then true.
if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of society, the true must go.
I used to believe this too. And, theoretically, i suppose it's _accurate_. The problem is, it's also impossible, precisely due to the laws of quantum mechanics. Our brains aren't macro systems. All of the universe participates in the quantum universe, a universe of probability, not certainty.
The breadth and depth of our universe may be infinite or maybe _just_ effectively infinite. Cause and effects cascade throughout, bubbling up and propagating through. So tell me how infinitely deep processes interacting in infinitesimal ways infinitely beyond our comprehension can be known to alter our thoughts? We may devise models to predict probable thoughts but never with certainty.
If we could understand any individual’s brain architecture and chemistry well enough, we could, in theory, predict that individual’s response to any given stimulus with 100 percent accuracy.
Of course it's a physical system but it is _not_ like any other. The brain is in a constant feedback loop. Combine this with quantum states of thought being inherently undecidable, it implies that thought is non-deterministic. At best, thought is an influential probability.
It describes the brain as a physical system like any other, and suggests that we no more will it to operate in a particular way than we will our heart to beat.
In no way does that imply we aren't in control of the movement. The buildup of activity _is_ the beginning of the person's decision to move. Conscious thought simply isn't instantaneous and we only become consciously aware of our brain's decision after some buildup threshold. Conscious awareness doesn't occur at the slightest brain activity. Our conscious selves would be overwhelmed. You aren't consciously aware of controlling your breathing or beating your heart but your brain is actively, constantly in control. Imagine being distract with inhaling and exhaling. Our brains don't care about lots and lots of its own processes until they reach a threshold that makes them become _important_.
It was already known that electrical activity builds up in a person’s brain before she, for example, moves her hand; Libet showed that this buildup occurs before the person consciously makes a decision to move.