The problem with Nix is that its often claimed to be reproducible, but the proof isn't really there because of the existence of collisions. The definition of reproducible is taken in such an isolated context as to be almost absurd.
While a collision hasn't yet been found for a SHA256 package on Nix, by the pigeonhole principle they exist, and the computer will not be able to decide between the two packages in such a collision leading to system level failure, with errors that have no link to cause (due to the properties involved, and longstanding CS problems in computation).
These things generally speaking contain properties of mathematical chaos which is a state that is inherently unknowable/unpredictable that no admin would ever approach or touch because its unmaintainable. The normally tightly coupled error handling code is no longer tightly coupled because it requires matching a determinable state (CS computation problems, halting/decidability).
Non-deterministic failure domains are the most costly problems to solve because troubleshooting which leverages properties of determinism, won't work.
This leaves you only a strategy of guess and check; which requires intimate knowledge of the entire system stack without abstractions present.
Respectfully, I sound like a Computer Engineer because I've worked alongside quite a number of them, and the ones I've worked with had this opinion too.
> A cursory look at a nix system would show ... <three things concattenated together>
This doesn't negate or refute the pigeonhole principle. In following pigeonhole there is some likelihood that a collision will exist, and that probability trends to 1 given sufficient iterations (time).
The only argument you have is a measure of likelihood and probability, which is a streetlight effect cognitive bias or intelligence trap. There's a video which discusses these type of traps on youtube, TED from an ex-CIA officer.
Likelihood and probability are heavily influenced by the priors they measure, and without perfect knowledge (which no one has today) those priors may deviate significantly, or be indeterminable.
Imagine for a second that a general method for rapidly predicting collisions, regardless of algorithm, is discovered and released; which may not be far off given current advances with quantum computing.
All the time and money cumulatively spent towards Nix, as cost becomes wasted, and you are left in a position of complete compromise suddenly and without a sound pivot for comparable cost (previously).
With respect, if you can't differentiate basic a priori reasoned logic from AI, I would question your perceptual skills and whether they are degrading. There is a growing body of evidence that exposure to AI may cause such degradation as seems to be starting to be seen with regards to doctors and their use and diagnostics after use in various studies (1).
Couldn't agree more. The tech boom made a lot of people rich, you might call that egalitarian, and believe that you too could share in the wealth.
The financial class call that uncaptured value, and they have since altered the terms to prevent that. Naturally the company still wants to pretend otherwise so when you hear the TC you add USD to timebomb banana bucks and come out with a USD total.
If you want equity start your own business. You are not in a position to get any of theirs.
Edit: if you get RSUs and you can liquidate without lockup then that's much better. But still worse than cash.
Chasing rapidly evolving trends is rarely the best bet. The people who pivoted to NFTs and Web3 wouldn’t have succeeded unless they built general tech knowledge along the way.
I also have seen quite a few NFT/crypto people coming out bruised and struggling to find a new role because of the association. A guy I work with was like that.
Created the issue, there is was a bit of a design flaw preventing me from doing this off the bat, but I do think it is important and would expedite understanding from the demo. Thank you!
Reliability is a dirty word, because it almost always comes at the cost of 'growth'.
reply