You are confusing copyright and patents, which are two very different things. And yes, companies or people wielding AIs can patent anything that hasn't been claimed by others before.
Its the ability to replay messages at later notice when needed.
At least this was the reason we decided to use Kafka instead of simple queues.
It was useful when we built new consumer types for the same data we already processed or we knew we gonna have later but cant build now due to prorities.
Its a perpetum mobile. Hiring managers use automation to filter candidates, coz its too many. Candidates see they dont even pass automatic filtering, so they apply with tailored CVs x10. This means even more CVs and more filtering and more CVs and more filtering and more CVs etc etc etc
Im curious at which point ppl will understand its counter productive.
Never, because they already know it is but fixing it requires both sides to deescalate in lockstep while individuals on both sides would benefit from not descalating
Did you see Google or facebook or Miceosoft customer databases breached ?
The issue is there is too little repercusions for companies making software in shitty ways.
Each data breach should hurt the company approximately to the size of it.
Equifax breach should have collapsed the company. Fines should be in tens of billions of dollars.
Then under such banhammer software would be built correctly, security would becared about, internal audits would be made (real ones) and people would care.
Currently as things stand. There is ZERO reason to care about security.
I’m all for companies to not ignore their responsibility for data management, but I’m concerned that type of punishment could be used as a weapon against competitors. I can imagine that certain classes of useful companies would just not be able to exist. Tricky balance to make companies actually care without crippling insurance.
I agree. When it becames penalized by law, project owners/managers won't be tempted to take shorcuts and will have the incentive to give developers more time to focus on security.
There is some incentive to leave 0days in customer software, as it creates a commodity to be sold on gray 0day markets. On the other hand, securing your own garden brings less value then covering and deneing that your 'secure' cloud platform was whacked.
We need both. The allowance by law enforcement to do cyber security as well as engineers not writing shitty software and lax IAM permissions or exposing private keys or the myriad of ways they mess up.
This is the first notable, semi-reputable Google result for each "${COMPANY_NAME} data breach". Some of these are examples of an API being leveraged to exfiltrate database records rather than direct database breaches like getting the admin password to postgres.
If you want to see more for the same company, try appending "-{YEAR_OF_KNOWN_DATA_BREACH}" to skip the ones you've already read, though this will tend to exclude companies who have multiple data breaches in one year.
Given how many attacks are false flags conducted through proxies this would be disastrous.
However, open intermediary victims up to contributory lawsuits and everyone will have to take security more seriously. Think twice before you connect that new piece of shit IoT device.
It was for ALL on-prem deployments. This wasn't due to the user being insecure, this was Microsoft's fault.
If anything it's yet another point AGAINST them - if they can't guarantee secure software without the caveat of running on a closed hardware black box then it's not secure software.
Microsoft just compromised the National Nuclear Security Administration last week.
Facebook was breached what last month?
Google is an ad company. They can’t sell data that’s breached. They basically do email, and with phishing at epidemic levels, they’ve failed the consumer even at that simple task.
All are too big to fail so there is only congress to blame. While people like Rho Khana focus their congressional resources on the Epstein intrigue citizens are having their savings stolen by Indian scammers and there is clearly no interest and nothing on the horizon to change that.
source? A quick search suggests the "breach" is a bunch of credentials that got harvested/phished got leaked, not that facebook themselves got breached.
>Google is an ad company. They can’t sell data that’s breached. They basically do email, and with phishing at epidemic levels, they’ve failed the consumer even at that simple task.
In other words, they haven't been breached, but you still think they're bad people.
To me, Facebooks’ entire business model seems like spyware and selling personal info to third parties. Whether people at such companies are good or bad is not at issue. I assume most people everywhere are good people. But are the companies themselves “good”? Microsoft and Google maybe, certainly in the past (Google wave was very innovative). But Facebook?
The context was privacy and people being victimized by Indian scammers. We know those scammers use Facebook to gather info and target victims, all without any actual breach taking place. To me, not having a breach does not make Facebook “good”.
>To me, Facebooks’ entire business model seems like spyware and selling personal info to third parties.
"seems like" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. I'm not aware of instances where facebook was "selling personal info to third parties". It does use personal info to sell ads to third parties, but characterizing that as "selling personal info" is a stretch.
>We know those scammers use Facebook to gather info and target victims, all without any actual breach taking place.
This just sounds like "scammers are viewing public facebook profiles and using facebook messenger to communicate with victims", in that case I'm not sure how facebook deserves flak here.
Agree. Google is buying the data for ads and ad brokerages. Don’t kid yourself. They may use a 3rd party to distance themselves but they definitely buy the data.
Difference between OTel and other previous standards is that OTel was created by “modern” engineers that dont care about resource consumption or dont even understand it. Which is funny because thats what the tool is about.
So yea, cost of storage and network traffic is only going to balloon.
There is room for improvements and I can already see new projects that will most likely gain traction in upcoming years.
One of the biggest fallacies I see in this space is people looking at an observability standard like otel and thinking "I must enable all of that".
You really don't have to.
Throw away traces. Throw away logs. Sample those metrics. The standard gives you capabilities, it doesn't force you to use them. Tune based on your risk appetite, constraints, and needs.
My other favourite retort to "look how expensive the observability is" is "have you quantified how expensive not having it is". But I reserve that one for obtuse bean counters :)
The onus is on the one asking to spend the money to demonstrate and quantify the business value and compare it to alternatives. Our field could do with a bit more justifying our purchases with dollar values.
When SAP swapped their mainframe era born GUI for a html/http based one, our Management was shocked about the tripled network bandwidth and how slow the system felt after the upgrade. At least functionality was on par.
And if we define being good as “help us to further keep human race alive as top spiecies”
Then yes, technology caused more harm than good.
World is currently experiencing another mass extinction event and at the current pace of events billions of ppl will either die from starvation or dehydration or various ecological disasters or wars caused by population migrations.
Due to how AI works its only a matter of time till its better at pretty much everything humans do beside “living”.
People tend to talk about any AI related topic comparing it to any industrial shift that happened in the past.
But its much Much MUCH bigger this time. Mostly because AI can make itself better, it will be better and it is better with every passing month.
Its a matter of years until it can completely replace humans in any form of intellectual work.
And those are not mine words but smartest ppl in the world, like AI grandfather.
We humans think we are special. That there wont be something better than us. But we are in the middle of the process of creating something better.
It will be better. Smarter. Not tired. Wont be sick. Wont ever complain.
And it IS ALREADY and WILL replace a lot of jobs and it will not create new ones purely due to efficiency gains and lack of brainpower in majority of ppl who will be laid off.
Not everyone is a noble prize winner. And soon we will need only such ppl to advance AI.
Can it? I'm pretty sure current AI (not just LLMs, but neural nets more generally) require human feedback to prevent overfitting. Fundamentally eschewing any fear or hope of the singularity as predicted.
AI can not make itself better because it can not meaningfully define what better means.
> Its a matter of years until it can completely replace humans in any form of intellectual work.
This is sensationalism. There’s no evidence in favor of it. LLMs are useful in small, specific contexts with many guardrails and heavy supervision. Without human-generated prior art for that context they’re effectively useless. There’s no reason to believe that the current technical path will lead to much better than this.
To say that this is pure fantasy when there are more and more demos of humanoid robots doing menial tasks, and the costs of those robots are coming down is ... well something. Anger, denial (you are here)...
To say that this is pure fantasy when there are more and more demos of humanoid robots doing menial tasks
A demo is one thing. Being deployed in the real world is something else.
The only thing I've seen humanoid robots doing is dancing and occasionally a backflip or two. And even most of that is with human control.
The only menial task I ever saw a humanoid robot do so far is to take bags off of a conveyor belt, flatten them out and put them on another belt. It did it at about 1/10th the speed of a human, and some still ended up on the floor. This was about a month ago, so the state of the art is still in the demo stage.
I'm waiting. You're talking to someone who believed that self-driving vehicles would put truckers out of work in a decade right around 2012. I didn't think that one through. The world is very complicated and human beings are the cheapest and most effective way to get physical things done.
It's very good. Postgres by itself can handle a very high volume of inserts (I did over 100,000 rows/s on very modest hardware). But timescale makes it easier to deal with that data. It's not strictly necessary but it's very time series friendly (good compression, good indexing and partitioning etc). Nothing a pg expert can't accomplish with a vanilla postgres but very, very handy.
I haven’t tried timescale, but I have found postgres with time-based partitions works very well for timeseries data. Unless you’ve got really heavy indexes, the insert speed is phenomenal, like you said, and you’ve got the freedom to split your partitions up into whatever size buckets makes the most sense for your ingestion and query patterns.
A really nice pattern has been to use change data capture and kafka to ship data off to clickhouse for long-term storage and analytics, which allows us to simply drop old partitions in postgres after some time.
I think timescale will compress them heavily on your schedule so if that's acceptable to your use case you might be able to do away with clickhouse. Hard to say of course, without knowing details around your insertion and query patterns, retention requirements and aggregations you need. But timescale can do a lot of that with pretty straightforward syntax.
I have used TimescaleDB in my last work place. We needed a easy way to store and visualize 500hz sensor data for few 10s of devices. We used it and Grafana to build a internal R&D tool and it worked way better than I imagined. Before I left I think the DB was using ~200GB on a compressed btrfs volume in DigitalOcean droplet and still performed fine for interactive Grafana usage.
Plastic is a fantastical space age material and we never gave it the fear or respect it deserves. Its usage should have been regulated from the beginning.
Disposable plastic shopping bags are kind of insane if you think about it.
Three years later I sold the car for 142k.
Adjusting car value, a 3years decrease, it should cost around 70k. But it doubled in price.
So at least here inflation on new / few years used cars is around 100%.
Its a terrible moment to buy used cars. You are way better off buyin a new car for 150-200k. Coz promos you get will drop its price by almost 30%.
reply