Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bryanl's comments login

(i'm the author)

We had a choice to make. We could have used a port, but then would have had to find a solution for when that port was used. So the choice was made to use a random port.


i think you should re-consider this choice for a few reasons. - every software has to do this, and they pretty much just do it and make it an option to configure. - just assume folks will run this in a docker container and it becomes an entirely mute point. - you have literally ostracized your core audience by making it impossible to run in a docker container.

just some thoughts. wish i could try it, but i'm not firing up my linux vm just to do so, knowing I can't run it reliably anywhere (because if it's choosing random ports, how will i now it won't randomly conflict with something?)


ksonnet isn't a Helm replacement and in the next release of ksonnet, we'll support Helm packages.


Most of the people world weigh themselves in kilograms.


They roughly infer their mass (in kilograms) by assuming 9.8m/s/s gravitational acceleration and using a scale to judge how much mass the resulting 'push' would require given that pull. A scale would tell you that you weight slightly less at the top of a mountain than at sea level, though in reality you'd have the same mass. Same is true on a neutron star.

It's an easy shorthand for the most part, since we're not 'weighing' ourselves in space, on the moon, etc, but in an article about space and physics and whatnot, it can come off as a bit sloppy.


Every single thing about life as we know it, humanity, and our brains is exceedingly sloppy. What makes it work? Error correction!

So, thank you.


> A scale would tell you that you weigh[] slightly less at the top of a mountain than at sea level, though in reality you'd have the same mass.

For an illustration of a pedantic distinction, this seems awfully unlikely to be correct. You gain mass by eating and drinking and lose it by urinating, defecating, and breathing; odds are you're not going to have the same mass on the mountaintop.


This is physics, we're clearly assuming a perfectly spherical human with lossless and instantaneous modes of travel.


> pedantic

Think you're maybe projecting? It was meant to be a silly example and taking a super uncharitable interpretation (object x at different times or states with different masses) of my statement just to be able to pick a nit strikes me as more pedantic than responding to a request for corrections with my high school level understanding of basic units.


Because a hike like that will really burn off the pounds ... er, I mean kilograms. (Joke)


9.8 m/s^2 need not be assumed. As long as you have a calibration standard, any scale can be calibrated correctly in any gravitational field.

If you care about absolute masses at the ~percent scale or better, calibration is requisite.


> A scale would tell you that you weight slightly less at the top of a mountain than at sea level, though in reality you'd have the same mass.

A pound of force uses 'standard gravity' as a constant, even though it varies across the earth. Sounds just as bad?


A pound of force is defined [1, 2] as 4.448222 N . No gravity necessary (but the IPK is, until the upcoming redefinition of the SI).

Yes, that definition was reached using a notion of "standard gravity", but once fixed, it is nothing but a number.

[1] https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)


Still not any more precise than kg to measure human weight (unless you position the human at the exact right spot on earth).


A properly-calibrated scale/balance will correctly determine the mass of any object in any gravitational field (gravity gradients excepted).


Not just as bad, because you'd be measuring the correct thing, which is force. Not mass. That's all I was getting at - they're different things and depending on context, one can change (weight) where the other does not (mass). That's all.


Because they're interested in knowing their mass, not their weight. Weighing is done using scales, which have a hardcoded division by gravitational acceleration of Earth on its... scales.


True, but WaxProlix is correct. Ten kilograms is 22 pounds on Earth, but 2.2 trillion pounds on the given Neutron Star.


I was going to jump in and say that the pound is also a unit of mass. But it turns out its both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)


And then there's the foot-pound, a unit of torque much prized by the owners of muscle cars until eclectric vehicles went from obscure to early-adopter status.


Or just general torque in the United States. Electric vehicles still have tires that are joined to wheels which are fastened to an axle by the tightening of a nut on a threaded stud. For safety, we generally state that the nut should have X foot-pounds of torque applied to ensure it doesn't fall off. Unless Tesla et al. have suddenly decided to use a more universal standard in the states, I'd assume they still publish that value in ft/lbs, since 98% of tools designed to measure these things owned in the U.S.A. have this unit on them.


Also, assuming we're talking about rest mass, since without that distinction the word mass is ambiguous in accelerated contexts.



How is this a win when it is coupled with the changes to healthcare that could adversely affect millions? Once again it looks as if super wealthy America is out of touch with the masses.


Negative changes in healthcare don't just affect the people who get worse healthcare.

Pretend you are solely concerned with the success of your business venture and nothing else.

Reducing general healthcare drives up your labor costs both directly and indirectly. Fewer vaccinations, longer infectious periods, reduced herd immunity, less work, more expensive.

Most people in the US don't have RSUs. Everybody needs healthcare.


@NVCA looks like a lobbying firm for VCs, so it's a win to them because they lobbied for something on a major, controversial bill.

They are certainly out of touch by calling the bill a "net positive for startups". https://twitter.com/nvca


'a win' - most of the readers here will be better off. Screw the poor and infirm, top 1% baby.


I really don't think so. Sure, the thing about options and vesting becomes a win. But, in order to realize that win, you have to join an early, early stage startup, and slog through it for a number of years, hoping it succeeds. All the while, your early stage startup is either not offering insurance, or they're just getting started with it, which means that month to month you're having a loss.


Healthcare is a different issue.

It's in a messy state right now, it has been since an unsustainable system was put in place.

Please don't conflate issues.


It’s not a separate issue when Congress adds a repeal of the individual mandate to their “tax” bill.


We didn't conflate the issues, congress did.


I find it weird to suggest that garage will go away. Once you get used to parking your car outside of the elements, you won't want to go back.


We bought a house recently here in Scotland and we must have looked at 20 houses before choosing the one we bought - all occupied houses had garages and not one was being used to house a car - they were mostly full of random junk.

Amusingly one house that wasn't currently occupied did have a car in its garage - a rather shiny and unused looking Lamborghini.

We ended up buying a house without a garage as we really don't need to collect more junk and our cars do fine outside. Only thing I did check was that it would be feasible to install a electrical charging point so I can finally look at getting an electric car!

[Edit: As expected of a British male of a certain age I am rather looking forward to finally owning my own shed and possibly a greenhouse].


In Santa Barbara, CA, where I live, each home must have two covered parking spaces, and the city will investigate and require you to empty out your garage if it is too full to hold cars and you don't have a carport or other covered parking.

Section 28.90.100.G.1 https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.as...


Out of interest, why do the parking spaces have to be covered?

Get much rainfall there? ;-)

[NB I did try reading that doc but got some nasty complaint from an IPS]


I believe the overarching goal is to prevent the neighborhoods from becoming ones where there are two cars parked visibly in every driveway. The city desires that cars are stored out of sight or attractively under a carport. I don't think they'd approve a permit for a plain ugly covered parking structure that sat over the driveway area (not compliant with setback rules at least). As such, you end up with either cars in garages, parked out of sight behind the home, or in an attractive carport adjacent to the home (which probably only allows a single car). Cars parked on the street have to be moved every 72 hours, so that's not an option either.


Not sure about Santa Barbara, but many areas at about that latitude get frequent sever storms with hail.


Modern cars don't really fit in garages that well, even my wife's Skoda Fabia won't go in our garage.


Old cars never really fit in garages that well either.

My father had both a 1954 Chevy an a 1963 for truck. In one house, built in 1918, the old car could be guided into the 1-car garage with the help of a couple people. There was just enough room to slide around the car.

Later on, they built a new house and extended the garage for the old car to fit. The truck didn't fit in either garage. The newer cars seemed to fit slightly better, though still tight.


Also in Scotland, currently in the final week of living in this house, and I've discovered a few things during my house hunting travels. News from builders is that new builds aren't built to have a 'proper' garage - they're built to have a storage garage, to the point that a modern larger variety car won't fit.

Couple that with modern cars being bigger than they were 40 years ago means that your average Wimpey home from the 70's won't have a large enough garage.

Builders also resist building out, in favour of building up in order to get more from the tranche of land.

My wife and I despise most cookie cutter new builds, but we took a tour around a new build estate for a laugh one day... postage stamp gardens, no hammerheads for turning a car, and a driveway large enough for one car. We had to use someones driveway to turn the car around... and these are 'spacious 4 and 5 bedroom homes' on offer for £400+k

Housing in the UK really is pitiful. We have some of the smallest homes in the world these days.


> Housing in the UK really is pitiful

Eh, I'm trying out London myself these days... and San Francisco makes the flats here look spacious.

And Scotland... Driveways! Gardens! Wow.


The catch in Scotland is finding a house that is both a decent size, has a decent sized garden, is commutable to somewhere that has high tech jobs and actually has a half decent connection to the Internet.

I was amazed to see brand new build lovely houses on sale that had no broadband availability - and this was maybe 20 mins from Perth.


> The catch in Scotland is finding a house that is both a decent size, has a decent sized garden, is commutable to somewhere that has high tech jobs and actually has a half decent connection to the Internet.

That may be asking for too many mutually exclusive interests. If you want a large house then you're going to increase the commute. If you want a lot of high tech jobs then living spaces nearby are going to be at a premium.


Och yes - nothing specific to Scotland about those trade-offs.

Availability of decent Internet bandwidth is completely unpredictable though - one house in a rural area might be 2Mbps and another house 1km away (and no closer to a town) might, in one extreme case we found, get 450Mbps and nobody could explain to me why this was the case!


I can't imagine being happy without a garage, but I find it weird that people put cars in them. Where do they keep their tablesaw?


In the basement of course :-)

Not having to clean snow/ice off in the morning is a luxury I quite appreciate.


I keep my table saw at the local makerspace, along with most of my other tools, and the tools all the other members have chosen to share. I go visit them whenever I want to work on something; in the meantime my house stays tidy. It's a great system.


I have a "two" car garage that is wide enough for one car, but not quite for two. Plent of room on the empty side for power tools, bike storage, lawn mower and the snow blower.


Perhaps things have changed since I was a kid growing up in the suburbs, but back then it worked exactly the opposite way: once you get used to using your garage as a storage unit, you won't go back to parking your car indoors.

I think the 21st century trend is more that garages will shrink and in some cases disappear because "once you get used to not needing to own a car, you won't want to go back". Car ownership is growing rapidly less essential for people who live in big cities and can afford to use uber/lyft for personal mobility and delivery services instead of going out for errands.


I don't think the garage will go away, but I do think we won't store transportation in there - especially if we happen to get mass transit to everyone via self-driving cars or something like that. (Obviously fantasy, but you get the drift).

The garage is so much more than car storage, though - as many others have pointed out, it makes for a grand workshop.


I don't park my car in the garage, but my mountain bikes and tools all go there. Can't imaging not having a garage for that reason.


doctl author here. The server isn't unknown, that's its name. This project was a private effort, and this component will be migrated to TLS and a DO domain on Monday. In the mean time, you can create a configuration file at $HOME/.doctlcfg (which is yaml formatted) and add an entry `access-token: <your access token>`, and you won't need to run `doit auth login`.


DigitalOcean has a tutorial series on Docker[0] with a discussion on the components[1].

[0]: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorial_series/the-d...

[1]: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/the-docker-...


TLDR:

"p’s and α’s are not the same thing; they measure different concepts"


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that probably isn't true. All go at DigitalOcean is deployed using one of two mechanisms. Nothing is `go run` outside of a developer's workstation.


Why not start your comment, "Hello. I agree with your points. I'd also like to add ..."?


Hello. I agree with your points. I'd also like to add that it would quickly become meangingless if everyone started to do this.


HIAWYPIALTAT people might just abbreviate it.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: