It isn't logic, and I think that's the point--it's an appeal to emotion, and if you pit logic vs emotion, emotion will almost always win in the broader culture. (A few oddball cultures like ycombinator and lesswrong etc. aside, perhaps).
It's always a matter of availability, balance, justification, right. The justification is there, so your argument is a strawman.
It would be more relevant in a direct comparison to gun control, which. Blades are fairly easy to furnish on the spot, easier than guns, so this comparison fails, too.
Balance requires a need for knives, which is difficult to put aside and certainly not the point of this argument. The ball park figure alone is not making a rational argument.
The internet is not the breaking point either way, though it could be used to implement access control.
So, I am effectively unsure if your whatabout'ish strawman is in favour of intrusive regulation.
Study results suggest that estimates of long-term exposure to multiple air pollutants was associated with increased risk of depression and anxiety. [...]
Like Yahoo answers? It's probably tough to get the incentives balanced. Without a really good design you'll get lots of people without deep knowledge answering many questions and playing the numbers game.
Right but the party currently in power in the UK made a big deal about "levelling up", hence the "levelling down" in the title. So to see that there's been little to no positive results (quite the opposite) suggests that they didn't actually care or do much about it.
No it does not. I'm saying the problem is much bigger than one country. And it's horrifying to observe how people don't realize what it means for them, for everything actually.
The great thing about perpetual motion machines is that you don't need to spend a lot of time digging through all the details, and you don't even need to be well-versed in physics, to understand that they're impossible. You just have to know that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Two items of note from their FAQ:
> "Except for the usual forces such as mechanical friction, resistance due to air, etc., no major force opposes this movement to the point of canceling it. "
Yes, and those "usual forces" require additional energy input to overcome.
> "The correct application of the Law of Thermodynamics (a) refers to closed systems which (b) exist in a reality of which 100% is known and understood. Both (a) and (b) can only ever be true with absolute certainty in theory, but never within the limited perception of reality how humankind experiences it - in other words: How much sense does it make to think that a system which is observed in only 4 dimensions can never and will never be influenced by what is contained and happening in the following 8 (higher) dimensions?"
So they're using magnets to pull energy from other dimensions. Got it!
> The correct application of the Law of Thermodynamics [...] exist in a reality of which 100% is known and understood
Uh, are they really saying that thermodynamics only starts working when we have a perfect understanding of reality, and not a picosecond before that? What the actual duck.
”The correct question would be: Who is Kryon? Kryon supports Humanity in many precious ways - not only by dropping hints about upcoming revolutionary technologies based on magnetism, such as (shallow depth) geothermal energy generation, (mass-scale) water desalination and magnetic engines. You are encouraged to tune in to the neverending stream of new free audio channellings.”
It seems a being from another dimension has blessed humankind with a perpetual motion machine. Where do I send my money?
Perpetual motion and free energy stuff was interesting things to read about back in early 2000’s internet (around the time when conspiracy theories were kind of niche).
The only thing of interest recently has to be the EmDrive [1] - only because the rigorous testing it was put through finally put the mail in the coffin of backyard free energy nuts.
Yeah I'd agree, this was the instant turnoff for me, I don't like Amazon. But I totally understand people trying to build a more modern Ruby framework.
Is that like, weird? How many companies are realistically hosting their compute/data across multiple providers for the sake of diversifying that risk? Certainly some, but a tiny minority right?
It's not only about hosting across multiple providers for the sake of diversifying that risk.
It's an unhealthy situation to be fully dependent on 1 single provider. It creates monopolies (instead of diversity and choice) which means less freedom, and/or more corruption and unhealthy conditions for all involved.
No I get the concern. I’m asking how many companies are realistically mitigating that risk, today. Like why is RoJ being called out for it here, when building systems that are tightly tied to various cloud providers is a pretty common thing (and dare I say the risk is even a bit overblown).
It is part of some regulatory frameworks. I’ve met someone from an European insurance company once, who told me they have be be able to switch to a different hyperscaler in 24 hours.
I also think it’s generally a good business practice to keep the number of companies you depend upon as small as possible. Only being able to deploy to one cloud provider is like only having one customer. It can work, but it is risky.
I think it's more than you realize because it was more than I realized. It only takes getting burned by a cloud provider once to get the execs to notice, then they talk about lock-in, and the good ones try to avoid it. Plus, remember people move companies and take their knowledge with them. It's the kind of thing that gets talked about in CIO circles [0], so it's more than a tiny minority.
In contrast to provider-native serverless solutions, cloud agnostic solutions carry a high price tag for the entire application life cycle in form of operations - those people petting your k8s. A common misconception regarding serverless applications is focusing on compute alone and in that context an agnostic solution may seem lucrative after traffic reaches certain threshold, justifying running a cluster 24/7. However many scalable application architecturs benefit from asynchronous processing and event-driven models which require reliable messaging infrastructure with considerable operational overhead. This is where serverless applications utilizing managed services shine, making it possible for small teams to deliver very impressive things by outsourcing the undifferentiated ops work to AWS.
On the other hand, if the compute layer is the only lock-in-inducing component in your architecture, a properly architected application is relatively easy to migrate to a serverful model. As a crude simplification, just replace the API Gateway with Express.
