> If the person they were quoting claimed to have been abducted by sasquatch, you could still make these two points. Would you still be arguing that it doesn't reflect poorly on the BBC to put that false claim into a headline?
No? That’s a very good headline for an article about someone who believes that they were abducted by a Sasquatch. It would be a missed opportunity for a newspaper to NOT do.
It would depend on the course load. Learning languages and how to use them can easily be encapsulated in capstone, software engineering projects, & internships. The goal of a CS degree, as opposed to a bootcamp, is for students to fully understand in intimate detail the background , history, ethics, & the 5 whys of the tool that they’re using. The way I would design a CS degree is:
1. for the first two years to be about general computing with an intro to programming via Java, Typescript, Python, & Go.
2. by the end of the 2nd year Data Structures and Algorithms should be mastered
3. Third year is for tracks , whether frontend, backend, full stack, Theory.
4. Fourth year is capstone project or internship
Or they do enough programming from 9-5 that they don’t feel like doing anymore when they get home to their family? Programmers don’t have to do anything more then their paid to do
It's subjective I guess, but I feel as though containerisation has greatly supported the large Cloud vendor's desire to subvert the more common model of computing... Like, before, your server was a computer, much like your desktop machine, and you programmed it much like your desktop machine.
But now, people are quite happy to put their app in a Docker container and outsource all design and architecture decisions pertaining to data storage and performance.
And with that, the likes of ECS, Dynamo, RedShift, etc, are a somewhat reasonable answer to that. It's much easier to offer a distinct proposition around that state of affairs, than say a market that was solely based on EC2-esque VMs.
What I did not like, but absolutely expected, was this lurch towards near enough standardising one specific vendor's model. We're in quite a strange place atm, where AWS specific knowledge might actually have a slightly higher value than traditional DevOps skills for many organisations.
Felt like this all happened both at the speed of light, and in slow motion, at the same time.
Containers let me essentially build those machines but at the actual requirements I need for a particular system. So instead of 10 machines I can build 1. I then don't need to upgrade that machine if my service changes.
Its also more resilient because I can trash a container and load up a new one with low overhead. I can't really do that with a full machine. It also gives some more security by sandboxing.
This does lead to laziness by programmers accelerated by myopic management. "It works" except when it doesn't. Easy to say you just need to restart the container then to figure out the actual issue.
But I'm not sure what that has to do with cloud. You'd do the same thing self hosting. Probably save money too. Though I'm frequently confused why people don't do both. Self host and host in the cloud. That's how you create resilience. Though you also need to fix problems rather than restart to be resilient too.
I feel like our industry wants to move fast but without direction. It's like we know velocity matters but since it's easier to read the speedometer we pretend they're the same thing. So fast and slow makes sense. Fast by magnitude of the vector. Slow if you're measuring how fast we make progress in the intended direction.
Containers have nothing to do with storage. They are completely orthogonal to storage (you can use Dynamo or RedShift from EC2), and many people run Docker directly on VMs. Plenty of us still spend lots of time thinking about storage and state even with containers.
Containers allow me to outsource host management. I gladly spend far less time troubleshooting cloud-init, SSH, process managers, and logging/metrics agents.
> Containers have nothing to do with storage. They are completely orthogonal to storage
Exactly.
And sure, you can use S3/Dynamo/Aurora from an EC2 box, but what would be the point of that? Just get the app running in a container, and we can look into infrastructure later.
It's a very common refrain.
That's why I believe Docker is strongly to linked the development of these proprietary, cloud based models of computing, that place containerisation at the heart of an ecosystem that bastardises the classic idea of a 'server'.
The existence of S3 is one good result of this.
IAM, on the other hand, can die in dumpster fire. Though it won't...
> And sure, you can use S3/Dynamo/Aurora from an EC2 box, but what would be the point of that?
An easy API? Easy replication / failover / backups? I would absolutely use S3 even with EC2.
> IAM, on the other hand, can die in dumpster fire.
I’m no great fan of AWS’s approach to IAM, but much of the pain is just the nature of fine-grained / least-privilege permissioning. On EC2 it’s more common to just grant broader permissions; IAM makes you think about least privilege, but you absolutely can grant admin for everything. And as far as a permissioning API goes, IAM is much cleaner/saner than Linux permissions.
Before Docker you had things like Heroku and Amazon Elastic Beanstalk with a much greater degree of lock in than Docker.
ECS and its analogues on the other cloud providers have very little lock in. You should be able to deploy your container to any provider or your own VM. I don't see what Dynamo and data storage have to do with that. If we were all on EC2s with no other services you'd still have to figure out how to move your data somewhere else?
Containerization was basically a way to get rid of the problem of "it works on my machine", mainly the OS version and installed libraries. Plenty of instances where program X will work on system A, but not system B, but program Y works on system B but not A. Or X is supported on Redhat/Ubuntu/etc. but you can't or don't want to build from source.
Even if that is not a problem, you avoid having to install the kitchen sink on your host and make sure everything is configured properly. Just get it working on a container, build and image and spin it up when you need it. Leaves the host machine fairly clean.
You can run a bunch of services as containers within a single host. No cloud or k8s needed. docker-compose is sufficient for testing or smallish projects.
Also, there is a security benefit because if the container is compromised, problem is limited that container not the entire host.
> Let's say Google release a new phone that is significantly cheaper and/or smarter than an Apple one. nobody would stick to apple.
This is not at all how the consumer phone market works. Price and “smarts” are not only factor that goes into phone decisions. There are ecosystem factors & messaging networks that add significant friction to switching. The deeper you are into one system the harder it is to switch.
e.g. I am on iPhone and the rest of my family is on Android. The group chat experience is significantly degraded, my videos look like 2003 flip phone videos. Versus my iPhone using friends everything is high resolution.
This seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. A pull request isn’t just a chunk of code thrown at people. it’s an entire process with a Title , description, pipeline checks that all come together to say I want this in another branch.
As the PR author it should be your job to:
* Self Review the PR
* Ensure you adhere/fulfill to all the expectations and requirements a PR should have before it’s pulled out of draft
* That all pipeline test pass
* That for a given request X there is test that validate X, Not X , and edge cases of X and are ran in the pipeline.
* Has a clear description of what you’re changing/adding/removing, why, how, and the rollout plan , roll back plan , & the risk level.
The peer review process should make the reviewer engage in a rubber duck process to review their code , loop the team in for changes that can change their mental model of how a system they own works, and to catch things that we might not catch ourselves.
> The sentence is convoluted but clearly implies that "this kid" was "one of the MAGA gang".
What? This is crazy “find the authors purpose” gymnastics. The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA. Thats the entire point of what was said
> The quote does nothing to imply that the kids is Maga or not. It does however directly commentates on “Maga gang”’s actions to try to paint him as anyone other than someone who could be MAGA
In every universe where the shooter is not "MAGA" (which, on the available evidence, includes ours), "trying to paint him as anyone else" is truthful, and not wrong. The entire point of a critique of this sort is to allege that someone did something wrong. The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA" (i.e., either believes it, or wants to insinuate it) because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.
> The sentence does carry the implication that Kimmel is calling the shooter "MAGA"
True.
> because otherwise there would be no reason, in Kimmel's position, to say any of it.
Untrue. In context, what he's saying (this is clear in the sentences before and after) is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution. Remember in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper, and even Fuentes himself came out to disavow violence. By Kimmel's monologue, the trans angle had diluted that obviously. But if we're playing interpretation games you can point out he was using past tense, right?
The "offensive" content needs to be deliberately inferred, and the appropriate response is to clarify and apologize. We all know what actually happened isn't about what Kimmel actually said.
> is that MAGA is playing politics by arguing about attribution.
Arguing about attribution would only be wrong, or worth pointing out, if they had a "MAGA" dead to rights about it. The context is a show that frequently bashes "MAGA", Trump and that entire political alignment, and only gets significant viewership when doing so.
> in the early hours it did look like the shooter might have been a groyper
This was a strained interpretation essentially based on the idea that groypers immerse themselves in 4chan political memes, as if it were exclusive to them. They have an /lgbt/ board.
But even if that had panned out, groypers are a separate, barely-comprehensible "far group". Rounding them off to "MAGA" would still be wrong.
> The "offensive" content needs to be deliberately inferred
No, it doesn't. It's an ordinary reading of a common idiom on these sorts of political punditry shows. If you're accusing someone of "trying to characterize X as anything other than Y", this accusation has force because you allege that X is Y, that the truth of this is plain, and that the person you accuse is trying to hide an inconvenient truth. And we know that this was intended as an accusation of doing something harmful because he described the "MAGA gang" as "hitting a new low" in doing so.
Kimmel's statement projected an unjustified and irresponsible confidence in something that now appears to have been clearly wrong.
> and the appropriate response is to clarify and apologize.
I see no reason to suppose that this would have happened. It also would have to be a retraction, not a clarification, because pointing out that the argument about attribution was justified cannot be a "clarification" of describing that act of attribution as "hitting a new low".
> We all know what actually happened isn't about what Kimmel actually said.
I agree that other reasons existed to fire him, mainly, declining ratings.
The guy also just isn't funny. He doesn't demonstrate any wit. He was just providing a space where people who wanted to mock Trump (or hear such mockery) could feel validated. There isn't exactly a dearth of such spaces.
> No, it doesn't. It's an ordinary reading of a common idiom
But not the only reading. Which you seem to agree with because you dodged that point. So if there are two interpretations, one offensive and one not, surely you agree that the reasonable reaction is just to discuss things like adults, right?
And not for the FCC commissioner to go out in public and threaten an unconstitional censorship of political speech, right?
Because you agree that Kimmel could have been innocent of the terrible crimes he was accused of.
Look, I'm not telling you that you aren't angry. I'm telling you that you're letting your anger lead you into some very scary places. Because those same tools can destroy Hannity too.
Don’t apply through linked in , apply directly via the company career site
what apply materials are you submitting ? are you doing cover letters ?. As a grad how many new grads positions did you apply to?
No? That’s a very good headline for an article about someone who believes that they were abducted by a Sasquatch. It would be a missed opportunity for a newspaper to NOT do.