mightyham

> the data may have made it to storage, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually visible, because the metadata necessary to reach it might not have been written yet.

The author should clarify here that this fsync wrinkle only affects newly created files, not updates to existing ones.

This thread of comments seems to be getting somewhat off topic. I believe the point being made by open3dlabs is that copyright is basically a pay to play system for corporations which is obviously unjust. You're right that copyright isn't enforced on individuals, but DMCA is definitely enforced on small content sharing sites which have little to no recourse compared to large corporations that can flagrantly break the law.

Is this not a good idea? It makes average users more selective about what content they are sharing, and reduces scam/bot content that can currently spam post links for free.

Yeah, you are correct. I was thinking about writes but not reads. Even the databases I mentioned typically have optimizations such that when there is a stable leader, reads don't require any network.

Gotcha, seems like we agree then.

Considering that the topic is an article is comparing raw NVMe vs EBS performance for postgres storage and GP saying that cloud is unnecessarily inefficient, I misinterpreted your comment as implying that networked storage is always an unnecessary cost. In many cases the cost of replication and availability is lower than the cost of data loss and downtime.

Latency can also be traded for availability. EBS storage provides replication and can trivially be removed/attached to new instances if the database server for some reason needs to be taken down. Any database with built-in replication/consensus (Kafka, Spanner, Dynamo, Cockroach, etc.) is making this same tradeoff and is effectively hitting the network on every storage request.

How many out of state friends and family would you feel comfortable asking to set up a VPN for you so you can watch porn?

I'm no theologian but I don't really think this coheres with standard Catholic doctrine. Typically, we say that God is being itself, pure and uncaused. All things maintain their very existence through God. We know that God has intellect because the world we reside in is intelligible. God has no need to experience change or time because he actualizes their very existence, and in order to do so, must already have perfect knowledge of it. Humans, even our souls, are created beings and are not any more a part of God than anything else that exists. Jesus was unique in that he was a hypostatic union of human nature and divine nature, and even though he was an indivisible union, these natures nevertheless remained distinct.

Edit: I wrote this response before you added that this was specific to the theology of John Scotus Eriugena.

This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.

"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.

Politics is a lense of analysis that can be applied to almost anything related to the group behaviors of people. Refusing to engage with it because there are charlatans that apply these methods poorly just demonstrates an inability or lack of desire to understand. It's quite revealing btw that you decided to frame intellectual pursuits and sexual behavior as being in opposition and/or claim that the later is somehow more important.

While admittedly async is a bit of a jungle for newcomers, I am glad that it is not built into the standard library. Where you see a bunch of needlessly competing runtimes, I see a healthy variety of different packages tailored to different users and technical specializations: tokio - reasonable default and server applications; smol - desktop applications or those who prefer the simplicity; embassy - embedded applications; futures crate - runtime agnostic utilities. I will gladly reach for any one of these depending on the kind of application I am developing.

First off, in some sense everything is political. Next, I am not claiming that you can't be supporter of open source while also holding a wide array of associated political views. My point is that the concept of open source fundamentally rejects the ideal capitalist conception of the world as a bunch of purely rational self-interested agents seeking to optimize wealth and economic output. Willingly performing labor for its own sake, for the benefit of others, with no expectation of return value, is obviously not capitalist behavior.

Open-source is an inherently radical anti-capitalist philosophy. In your eyes everyone "deserves" what the market is willing to pay, but open-source developers would rather donate their time and energy to create or contribute to something that is freely accessible to anyone and everyone. Also, believe it or not, but some people are not motivated by money, and actually derive value from the process of creating software.

The issue with rug-pulls like this is that they are deceptively masquerading with this philosophy as a calculated business strategy to adopt users. Then in this case they start using deceptive tactics like removing build files so they can continue appearing to be fully open source, even though they are violating the spirit of that term. Finally, they drop the facade when it is deemed valuable enough. Even if you are a strict capitalist, there is nothing virtuous or meritocratic about these kinds of business strategies, they rely on tricky, concealed intentions, and rightfully deserve criticism.

I'll also add that there is nothing "courageous" about deciding to extract more value from your labor at the expense of public accessibility. True courage is found in acts of selfless sacrifice.

Watching the transform values update on the DOM is mesmerizing. Great demo!