He's referred to himself as a "dictator". CPAC put out imagery likening him to Caesar. He's referred to himself as "King" and put out that ridiculous AI generated image of him as a king. He put out that ridiculous AI generated image of him as Jesus (and then later gaslit reporters about it). Him and his campaign have repeatedly stated ideations for an (unconstitutional) third term "and beyond".
> except they don't like the guy's policies and conduct.
That too, but his conduct rises above "policies I don't like"; he has shown direct contempt for the other branches of our government. For example, his administration has essentially dismantled or destroyed various functions in violation of the Constitution: take USAID as an example here: USAID is an agency created de jure by Congress, yet it has been de facto dissolved by the administration. We all learned, I think, in grade school, that the job of the executive is to implement the laws passed by Congress. From an article at the time about it:
> “The President does not have constitutional authority to ignore a statute that establishes a department or agency,” says Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
He holds the judicial branch in contempt too: quite literally any time any judge does anything he disagrees with, the judge is blasted as "left-wing radical", even and including cases where the judge was a GOP-appointee. Further examples include ignoring judicial orders and depriving people of access to the courts by physical force (see the many cases of the administration's removal of people from the country; to put it one way: "For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury", or "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene" — Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan & Jackson.)
It's not within the realm of believability. The chance of "human screwed up" astronomically exceeds this being fairly randomly chosen, and the Firefox bug states, (I think this is supposition, not known fact, but IDK)
> The original key generation was flawed - rather than any issue with the produced signatures. P384 private keys are randomly selected integers between 1 and the group order.
Why are the intermediates, and not the root cert, being revoked?
The intermediates seem to be difficult in that the root stores don't seem to have a mechanism for it (… kinda seems like an oversight, at this 20:20 vision point?). If eight of the CA's intermediates are hosed … how many are still "good", and are they good good, or are we just fooling ourselves?
I guess the other question I have is just how many intermediates does this one CA have? They've had 8 compromised thus far; that's not the entire lot of them?
You know the old saying: if you find 8 cockroaches in your house, then a realistic estimate for the total number of cockroaches in your house is exactly 8.
> Why does it not matter if the state is unstable? If I'm operating a cluster that can't settle, I'd like to know immediately!
Because it's probably an impossible to answer question hinging on each person's pet definition of "stable".
In one example of an unstable cluster, pods are "regularly" crashing — but at a really low frequency, like, each pod crashes onces every few days. They're OOM'ing — a bug in the workload, not really the cluster's fault — but the control loop pattern still ensures the failure is corrected in the sense that the pod will either be restarted or evicted and re-created.
(But yes, you absolutely want monitoring to pick up on that. In the specific example here, I'd say it's "just monitor pod failures", and then you get not only OOMs, but all the other ways a workload might crash too.)
I've actually had more problems when the control loops get stuck. (Which they can, almost always because you've asked for the impossible. But sometimes it is hard for the various pieces to say more than "no solution". Why no solution is usually a human-level deduction.)
> On a local SSD, a random read costs nothing if a page is cached, and costs under a millisecond in case of a page fault. […] The scarcest resource is not CPU, and not bytes, but the number of round trips you make to the object store, and most design decisions below follow from that
There's not really a difference here between S3 and your disk, aside from the literal amount of latency. Restructuring the format to require less reads to make S3 faster would proportionally benefit disk reads.
S3 is a lot easier manage, though. Storage is just then AWS's problem. (And what's a few ms of latency on the BE when pages take tens of seconds to load on the whole.)
> What changes when your search index lives on S3?
None of this changes because your search index lives on S3; there's no property of S3 that says "this is an inherently better format for S3 than it is for disk". The format improvements are independent of the latency difference.
Confidently wrong? The labeling the author has chosen, with "park"/"drive", would lead someone to select headlights because they're in drive, even during the day. I have never seen the symbol they label "parking" described as such.
> “parking,” which activates only front lights, at half brightness, and (for some reason) leaves the tail lights off.
I've also just double checked the manual for my car to be sure I'm not talking out of my ass here: the symbol he calls "parking" activates the tail lights. From the manual:
> “[double headlights, one left one right symbol]” position:
> Instrument panel illumination, parking lights, front side marker lights, rear side marker lights, tail lights and license plate lights are on.
(My manual does not ascribe a name to it.)
Now, I suppose this could be an unexpected thing that differs between cars, but it also shouldn't really matter that much. The intro example is in the rain; you should be using the symbol he calls "park" in the rain, you should be using the "low beams" setting, and then your tail lights are definitely on. Or … just let "Auto" handle it?
(I've always called this symbol "daytime running lights". Wikipedia says that's a different symbol (a single headlight with stippled lines emitting from it), one I've definitely never seen before & isn't in TFA; Wikipedia claims it to be the ISO symbol, however, I've found the relevant ISO standard¹, but it seems to lack the symbol Wikipedia calls "daytime running lights". The symbol I call DRL is called "position" or "side" lights, and the term DRL is not used by ISO AFAICT, despite what Wikipedia claims. What a mess.)
(from TFA:)
> Many cars have an AUTO option now, but would you trust it to choose the right thing?
… yes? Absolutely yes. The car can just do the right thing for me, without me having to remember. Sensing ambient light is not complicated.
> pull on the stalk for high beams (another mode), or rotate the stalk left or right for turn signals.
There is absolutely no way whatever car this is a photograph of is rotating the stalk for turn signals. Turn signals are pull up or down, universally.
¹ISO-2575:2021, though technically a draft since ISO standards are not open. But this symbol has been around since forever, so unless it's changed recently…
since daytime running lights have been proven to have a positive effect on accident rates, some cars just turn them on and just don't give the option of turning them off anymore. Mine does that and so does my wife's, for example. You can't run the car with zero lights
Yeah, I was wondering about it, the car example feels like from some kind of bizarro reality.
"Driving" or "Parking" lights make no sense conceptually. Over this side of the pond, we just call these symbols by what they actually represent - tail lights, short lights, anti-fog lights, etc.
Which I guess kind of is a problem happening in UX right now. It's my firm belief that the buttons for operating equipment should be labeled by what the button does, not when to use it. In domain of illumination, "headlights" and "tail lights" are real concepts; "parking" and "driving" are category errors.
> "Driving" or "Parking" lights make no sense conceptually
You're pulled into a parking spot and you want you're waiting with corner markers on for safety and illumination, bit you don't need or want your headlights blasting.
It's like 2.5D, maybe like 2.75D or so. Technically, every map in vanilla Doom is a 2D map, with various "sectors" in the map having height; they're rendered in a sort of pseudo 3D, but crucially the map will never have one floor about another¹. I don't think I'd argue the 2D maps technically make it "not 3D", though.
However, Doom also renders textures using an algorithm that sort of paints walls as like vertical lines of sorts. The exact algorithm it uses makes it hard to look up (to pitch), and I think impossible to roll the camera. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_engine#Rendering> — it has a good animated graphic of what happens if you do look up, and the differences between the output of Doom's software renderer's algorithm and something actually rendering 3D.
¹modern ports have ways to accomplish this, and even before there were direct ways of doing it, clever map layout and instantaneous teleporting can get pretty close.
I've never thought having the environment in the version tag (or whatever resembles that) was a good idea. It is a remarkably common thing, though.
But it means that, by definition, we are deploying a different tag to dev, staging, and prod. (Or whatever your pre-prod envs are called.) Hopefully, these all point at the same commit … hopefully¹. (Worse, some schemes out there — not the TFA's — force them to never specify the same commit(!) and we devolve to "let's pray those different commits specify the same tree.)
Just tag a version number. Use the date, if you can't think of a version number. Separately, you maintain some file containing what tag/revision you want on each of your dev/stage/prod/etc. environments. This is basically the same rough scheme as what TFA lays out … but not special. Just text files, in a repo², like everything else. You can do it in a separate repository (I'd recommend) or the same one (I wouldn't recommend, but it can work).
The exemplar question,
> When did we last deploy the www.our-app app to production?
Is just the `git log` of the file that contains the hash that that app should be deployed to.
The SRE in me notes, however, that gitops-based deployments (what all of these schemes are) represent the point in time that a deployment is requested — not when it actually rolls out. Deploys that fail or are blocked on some externality can converge much much later than the git commit instructing them to occur is minted. Also, the SRE in me wants to notes that deploys in any realistic scenario are not a point in time. (It starts when you start bringing up the first replica of your app, and it finishes when the last replica of the older deployment has spun down. Depending on how much bloat you have … it can be a good little span of time.)
(¹TFA's scheme seems to contain a textual reference to the tree sha, but is that checked?)
²If you have worked with Flux or ArgoCD, you're almost certainly doing exactly what I am describing, though those are not the only two such systems capable of it.
> except they don't like the guy's policies and conduct.
That too, but his conduct rises above "policies I don't like"; he has shown direct contempt for the other branches of our government. For example, his administration has essentially dismantled or destroyed various functions in violation of the Constitution: take USAID as an example here: USAID is an agency created de jure by Congress, yet it has been de facto dissolved by the administration. We all learned, I think, in grade school, that the job of the executive is to implement the laws passed by Congress. From an article at the time about it:
> “The President does not have constitutional authority to ignore a statute that establishes a department or agency,” says Saikrishna Prakash, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
He holds the judicial branch in contempt too: quite literally any time any judge does anything he disagrees with, the judge is blasted as "left-wing radical", even and including cases where the judge was a GOP-appointee. Further examples include ignoring judicial orders and depriving people of access to the courts by physical force (see the many cases of the administration's removal of people from the country; to put it one way: "For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury", or "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene" — Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan & Jackson.)
reply