Does anyone know if the benchmarking tool the author uses, plow, avoids coordinated omission (https://www.scylladb.com/2021/04/22/on-coordinated-omission/)? I didn’t see any mention in the docs, and haven’t been able to peruse the source code yet.
There are a lot of big claims here and literally not a single reference to anthropological research or even anything resembling it. This article is very badly argued.
I think there's something about the way this is written that's endemic to our time -- it basically feels right because it gives a possible explanation of current events that has some internal consistency. It doesn't mean it's right, but neither the author nor (most of) the audience care about that part.
Specify what argument is bad? I don't think it needs references. If after "The reason modern individuals agree to give up their right to personal protection is due to their belief in institutions" there was a footnote that said something like "Bigbeard, 1983" how would that help?
If my kid is sad that she cannot have an extra granola bar, that does not imply that I am wrong to deny her, or even that she thinks I am wrong, it just means she wishes she could have one.
Yes, this is still the most persuasive and concise argument I’ve encountered against a whole host of forms of biological reductionism, including those based on modern fmri techniques.
Typically with rails applications, test dependencies are not used for local development (i.e. running the rails server on your local machine), they are separate groups in the Gemfile.
This reminds me of an interview with Luce Irigaray in which, IIRC, the interviewer asks her if she is (or considers herself to be) a "writer", using the French word écrivain, a masculine noun, and she responds something to the effect of "it is not me who decides that question."
“Conscientiousness is also negatively correlated to intelligence at around -0.27”
Do you have a citation that supports that claim without qualifiers?
I recently reviewed a bunch of the literature on this topic and it seems like the jury is very much still out, in some cases there is a negative correlation, in others positive, in others none at all.
Could it be an acquired trait? Most 'smart kids' don't need to put in the work to learn (and that's mostly all the work there is for most kids) until they hit college.
Conscientiousness is something that can be learned and is socially reinforced through your social reference groups. It is one of the bedrocks of professional growth alongside technical prowess and social mastery. This is very evident in the military.
- say you need a messaging system to communicate between different components
- that messaging system is a 3rd party library or tool, it has no knowledge of your needs or architecture
- therefore it can have no knowledge of what counts as a duplicate message, it either just blasts your message off once, or blasts them off until it gets an ack, it is up to the software you build around this component to avoid duplicate processing
- so yes of course you can build "exactly once processing" on top of an "at least once delivery" system
- but it still makes sense to talk about the distinction between delivery and processing, and "exactly once delivery is impossible" is still (in OP's terms) a "useful" claim
I haven't personally used kafka but it and similar systems (I vaguely recall some work by Pat Helland that may fall into a similar bucket) could possibly be said to a) constitute messaging systems, b) provide exactly once delivery semantics, in that they are
less of a library and more of a framework that provide a concept of "duplicate message" that you basically buy into by using those systems.
You could then argue that "if it provides exactly once delivery it is not a messaging system", maybe there's a good argument there or maybe it's just pedantry.
I believe the consensus now is that her analysis of Eichmann was wrong, he had fooled her (and others). Personally I still think the concept of the “banality of evil” overall still has merit.
The non-appearance of "monstrous psychopaths" is only part of it. I
don't know much about Eichmann but there's a rather good treatment of
the Nuremberg trials in the Adam Curtis documentary The Living Dead
[0], in which Hermann Göring is shown as setting a tone that later
resurfaces with Eichmann and in the Truth and Reconciliation hearings
of post-apartheid South Africa and many other trials of atrocities and
war crimes - namely an intransigent adherence to the defence that
"everything was done legally".
I don't think any culture has fully digested the implications or had
the courage to approach the questions Nuremberg and subsequent trials
posed 80 years ago; where does the law run out? When does it become
not just okay but morally necessary to defect/rebel/rise-up against
your own side, and its so-called "laws" when it's become degenerate
and run by criminals ?
In this way I don't think the difficult issue is that evil is banal
(as in C. R. Browning's "Ordinary Men" [2]) but that it's "everyday,
procedural and institutionally backed". It's defended by social
organisations held dear, right up until a point of collapse and pivot
of history when those institutions themselves become seen as evil.
Eichmann and Göring went beyond "Kadavergehorsam" [1] and were
indignant that anyone dare judge them. Göring tried to school the
judges in moral philosophy.
I don't think anyone is comfortable revisiting this topic, especially
as it's still relevant and playing out today in at least two theatres
of war.
The terms "anode* and cathode have their own problems. The cathode is that terminal of a device where positive current emanates. The (+) terminal of a batter is normally a cathode, but when the battery is being charged, it becomes an anode.
The terms anode and cathode should be burned. We don't use them much in modern electronics. E.g. we don't say that the positive power pins of a CPU are anodes, or that ground pins are cathodes.
