There is a fine line between being opposed to fat acceptance and thinking performative cruelty works.
(It's does not. It made me so much worse. I have nothing but bad things to say about the medical "professional" who catastrophized my diagnosis to "wake me up" and then shrugged when my response was depressed resignation.)
There are several studies now showing that symptoms reported by overweight patients are taken less seriously by medical professionals, it’s not just a matter of people “being nice”. It’s actually providing a lower standard of care.
I should clarify that my doctor explicitly lied to me (found out by requesting my medical file after moving) to shock me on purpose because of his own fifth grade understanding of psychology.
Whether patients make good choices is completely independent from whether doctors provide everyone with equal quality of care.
Specifically, doctors are less likely to investigate issues that can be explained by obesity than they are in non-fat people.
For example, if you have high blood pressure and you are a normal weight your doctor will probably look into underlying conditions that can cause high blood pressure. Being overweight is an independent risk factor for high blood pressure but it doesn’t reduce the likelihood of the other risk factors. Doctors are less likely to look into an underlying cause for high blood pressure if you are overweight.
Doctors are probably also less likely to look for other causes of chronic cough in smokers.
In general doctors are looking for the most obvious potential causes of a health problem. If someone on high dose anabolic steroids went to the doctor with him blood pressure, the doctor would probably tell them to cut out the steroids as the obvious answer rather than exploring other reasons the patient’s blood pressure might be high.
Where do you think the contradiction is? A CPU limit of 1 does not prevent an application from using 8 cores worth of compute at once, it just limits the compute to 1 core per 100ms slice on average, and usually that means getting unscheduled for 7/8 of the slice, if the app is using all available resources and nothing else contests them (weighted by requests).
Some workloads will also consume all the resources you hand them without being latency sensitive at all.
I've handled outages of CPU time available getting suddenly compressed (we were running pod priorities with staging/prod on one cluster and up to 70% spots in 2019) and then learning that some very important applications outgrew their original requests, gone unnoticed because limits were removed a year or so prior. You can fix this with monitoring/right-sizing tools, but that requires your org to not be dysfunctional, and my style of platform engineering usually has to account for the org being very dysfunctional.
It's not as much an "overhead" as it will mess up your latency. Limits don't stop you from using available resources until you hit the relative allowance in a CFS window, so a 1 CPU limit on a 32 CPU machine at worst gives you 32 cores for 3.3ms every 100ms.
Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean rejecting science and 50 years of research in an area where there’s a rare 99% consensus among scientists (check: Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters), just because some guys on social media said so.
The best kind of propaganda is when people believe they're "thinking on their own" while repeating some convenient lie to keep the grift going. If you think that doesn't apply to you, then it's working as designed.
At least I am falling to the best kind of propaganda. While the other side, who does not apparently even believe they're "thinking on their own", is falling to a much poorer one...
GitHub Actions was always a mess. Because it is a Microsoft product.
If you want to have a horrible time, try reading some of the runner code. It's early 2010s-style Windows-First, MSFT C# crud that has trouble not racing several threads to inconclusive status codes.
Yes. That was my impression too. Github Actions aren't a good product in many ways. It's also very complex and requires quite a bit more infrastructure than the rest of Github. Unfortunately, I don't think that the commercial side of the product would allow it to improve in the direction of better quality / uptime. It's cursed to be forever like MS Outlook: whenever it changes it's for the worse, even though it was never good.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, because it has all the signals of a joke, but it might be closer to true than I'd like to admit.
At my work, the average quality has gone up with "blindly trusting Opus". The failure modes are horrendous and the code is verbose as shit, but it still works better. Most "engineers" aren't very good at writing code.
(It's does not. It made me so much worse. I have nothing but bad things to say about the medical "professional" who catastrophized my diagnosis to "wake me up" and then shrugged when my response was depressed resignation.)