paulgrant999
The real problem isn't the "addiction" (which is so mild as to be laughable); its the sudden influx of time you have, and the fact that smoking, favors a sedentary lifestyle (typically associated with high stress jobs).
Typical spreads are; 1-3 days discomfort, 7-day relapse, 14-21 day relapse, 6 week relapse. after that, unless you hang out with smokers...
They strike anyone with a brain or domain-level knowledge (until they run out of strikes).
You never see the totality of the evidence; just what the judge "allows in" (that isn't prejudicial to the prosecutors case).
You don't know what the punishments are; half the time you aren't instructed on lesser offences; and most of the time you never even get to see the actual laws, or more importantly, case law.
if you think sitting on a jury (as it stands today) qualifies you to render any sort of judgement on the "evidence", you are woefully mistaken.
You are a puppet. A fop. Anything but "the last bulwark against state tyranny".
The appearance of justice, is the only thing Courts give a shit about. You are part of that appearance. A show, for the uneducated to think they still have a functioning legal system.
--
I had someone contact me for a "consulting" position, to replace their rule-based insurance claim denial system, with "ML". Contract-work, nobody in-house to review its performance, no insight to the problems of the domain and they wanted to throw ML at it to "solve their problem".
When I refused, and pointed out that it would be highly irresponsible, to "contract-out" this type of work, particularly given its life-or-death implications; the CEO got angry. Told me; its "post-claims processing" and it isn't life or death. To which I told him bullshit; your denial of claims is going to directly influence how doctors practice their treatment. There is a direct feedback cycle. The fact that you don't see it, makes it even more dangerous.
They simply, didn't understand, how HIGHLY inappropriate it was to just throw random ML at a problem, particularly as a one-off consulting project (and no in-house expertise).
^ thats real-world.
Personally I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near ML, UNLESS you have that PHD in computer science. I don't even think you should be allowed to HIRE people for ML until you fully understand the hazards with letting a computer control critical decisions.
So yeah, with respect to your distinction of "ML research" and "applied ML".
"NO."
If no-one is going to look at the actual evidence/agreements/law....
You don't need AI.
You just need collusion between law firms i.e. to write a program, and then agree, that whatever it interprets, is the way it will be semantically enforced in court.
To be clear: the study of law is bullshit; so why not take advantage of it, and simply agree, that computer generated bullshit, is what determines it...
... of course while still retaining high rates and billable hours for "attorney review" (for billable hours/padding).
might. I skipped it, use soft-links, and hard outputs (variable files) to get around it. cuts down on the graph, I can set explicit boundaries (on whats getting eval'd) without having to go through the terraform DSL. equivalent to running separate terraform scripts, on separate portions of the infrastructure.
data source providers (understandably) are not static; there is no way to cache the output of data providers between runs; which means any query retriggers dependencies eval which rebuilds perfectly fine infrastructure. hence why I just output static files. Now there is no chance for terraform to think this variable might change, and ergo, no chance for rebuild of infrastructure that doesn't need it.
> It has been my experience with tens of providers that the time loss occurs when the requests have been handed off to a providers API but not so much in Terraform.
Agree. So this is sort of the point. I don't need to actually bring up machines in a typical DAG fashion - so some of the work is parallelizable. But other parts aren't. If I need 20 machines, I know I need 20 machines. If the AMI's are loaded on the cloud provider, there is absolutely no reason to have them loaded sequentially (such as a "post-config" might require) i.e. incurring large wait times. Once you start using "terraform" variables (off of resources), that is what you get. So I prefer a different variable resolution mechanism (i.e. lazy/evented).
Particularly now that you can ghetto-leverage the cloud providers tag systems, in order to do "proto" service discovery (tag machines for eventual service discovery/config i.e. similar to ansible roles).
I'm twisting the hell out of terraform (for things it is not intended to do). but that is because I want to avoid adding yet another tool to the toolchain. More declarative DSL's = more issues to diagnose.
> As for Terraform itself, my biggest issue is that it has turned around the view of resources and providers.
not so much a problem for me (not multi-cloud). I like knowing (at a glance) what provider-specific features I can expect to be supported. The problem with trying to abstract out cloud provider, is you go with the lowest common denominator (in terms of declarative syntax).
> It should have been going in the direction of https://github.com/google/go-cloud
Never used it.
Also I've never written a terraform module. So its entirely plausible, this is where my issues would be resolved (custom provider) and an "enhanced" dsl.
> In a very real way, its all ad-hoc expertise.
> A series of one-off's you try, to get a compromise your client can accept.
^^^ substantive comments. Not "ranty". Points. Made in logical order.
You may not like them. But they are there.
which is why I don't stress that "agree to disagree over similar premises". can be both a hindrance, and a benefit.
wink.
> One formerly quite religious friend who lost faith in his mid or late 40s seemed quite apathetic for a while after.
runs deeper than that. people who are religious, usually are religious because it made sense. but the corruption in organized religion in the west, is difficult to reconcile with the actual tenets of a faith. so when they abandon their church; they still have the same needs that drew them - but now their is no path forward for fulfillment. Religion (in the purest sense), does have a purpose.
> Thankfully atheist evangelists and militancy aren't a thing here outside of Dawkins. :)
Indeed, you are somewhat blessed in this respect. I've always preferred a good conversation.
> Passport applications insist on it (I think. It's been 8 years or so since my last)
that would seem to be the thing to rectify. Unless your legal system is based on religious code; mandatory religious disclosure would seem to be a bit "impolitic".
> This seems to nail it.
He's a good person. So am I. Good people, prefer the company, of good people. Thus, has it always been.
> Religion, belief, spirituality and atheism has become a personal thing separate and unrelated to organised religions in the UK.
You guys have had a rough time of it. Speaking from a historical/religious perspective.
I'm not surprised by Western Christians jettisoning their "faiths". But it would be nice if they didn't impute the Western failures, say on Eastern or Middle-Eastern Christianity (which are vastly different creatures).
It distorts the mind, to project local problems, on all of humanity. Each culture is different; each takes a different path.
I'm not a big fan of this (as you've mentioned it) for multiple reasons. First, use is not necessarily linked with failure rates. Second, predictive analytics that cull the actual failure rates, distort the underlying processes. Third, not every (insert part) is the same. Forth, replacing parts on a predictive schedule (particularly absent a rational policy) is wasteful/inefficient.
Sort of why statistical inference in medicine, is also a failure. This is the same type of faulty reasoning, applied to cars.
Having said that; what does work is: * Maintaining and monitoring for detection of NON-use failure rates (abnormal production/design/environment issues). * Maintaining and detection for imminent failure (via live signal extraction via failure mode matching). * Improving design and production, using high-resolution detection of onset of problems on part post-mortems.
> Now the company not only sells vehicle telemetry but also predictive maintenance notifications.
Intro the vehicle equivalent of "you have to replace your toner, drum, etc". I need to make more money? Send out more PM notices. Who doesn't like more PM notices? :)
> However; I believe there may be an indirect metric
called a proxy metric. Doesn't work in the long-term as their is always drift. But good for eyeballing a dataset and trying to work out a rough estimate of the bounds.
> Maybe that particular solution isn't great but the idea of a "'universally' applicable indirect metric for tech debt for business monitoring" seems tractible.
Naw. The real problem is that "technical debt" is an actual "fiscal" thing; its just not being tracked i.e. you need to link the metric, to the ledger. And then, you have to handle the strategic aspect (when do you actually pay the price, to "pay down" the technical debt). Lastly, couple it with product lifecycle (in the software industry, months). It may be, for example, cheaper to simply retire the product than pay down the debt. Which effectively converts your technical debt to "zero" by strategic decision.
Its not an accident that microservices are very popular (for example); nevermind all the bullshit spouted about it, there is a simple, direct line of reasoning to the entire practice.
> P.S. Personally, I've toyed with the idea of a 90/10 technology business where 90% of all work done is invested in production monitoring, building metrics, improving any performance bottlenecks, simplifying the codebase (literally reducing LOC where possible), information sharing (recorded tech talks about parts of the system with quizzes at the end), building testings, investing in deploying the system quickly and painlessly, and getting people set up to work ASAP (Vagrant, documentation, w/e). Only 10% would be spent on new feature development. Tech debt is always being paid down in this setup.
Wink ;) you cannot automate, brilliance. particularly, in coding. either you have the right mindset to the problem domain, or you don't. frameworks cannot substitute, for understanding. you can fake it with structure (and throwing more machines at it), but at the end of the day, you need, to understand your problem domain, your customer and your orgs fin. structure. You should take a step out from the technical side, and look at it from the business side. Particularly, when you introduce uncertainty, and constraints (business).
I built something similar to what you are talking about; but the purpose was targeted to slightly (sufficiently) different purposes, using similar techs. I prefer to architect the solutions rather than rely on (insert methodology); that is, to take into account the system dynamics and test proposed codebases using different types of methods, rather than rely on the current methods of remediation. But this necessarily, increases tech debt. But it does so, for the right reasons. And that, makes ALL the difference.
It is not an accident that the GINI coefficient, is so drastically out of whack in the US.
The mortgage system, was meant to break the original land grants (which had to be honored under British-American common law).
The corporation both a shield for the rich; and a sword against the middle-classes as it disenfranchises citizens from the bill of rights.
Intellectual property is just a more extreme form of corporations. The notion that idea can be owned for decades, with the cost of enforcement out-sourced to the public, and private profits insourced.
Same with the public schooling system (ready workers). Etc.
Just about every Western institution ("improvement") you'ld care to name, has an ulterior motive moving us one step further along to what amounts to perpetual slavery.
I think if you sent back a person from this era, 120+ years ago, to try and "improve" the American system, they'ld have burned him alive. Such is the level of degradation inherent in todays "modern" governance.
Yup. Your idea of good, is not my idea of good. That we can reach an agreement (compromise), the consensual portion.
That good, is often a matter of perspective, and subject to change in hindsight (i.e. a value judgement distorted heavily by the sensorium/ego) is where it is a hallucination.
> Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion
no, it doesn't. in point of fact, religion arises as a consequence, of the argument. So do gangs/police/armies/nations. Welcome to the morass, of humanity. :)
;)
or if you prefer "the road to hell, is paved with "good" intentions".
or more succinctly, "hell is other people".
> Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense
Not a fan of logic?
> and condescending smiley faces.
condescending? not really. simply commenting on an alternate pathway to arrive at the conclusion, as a consequence rather than a posit. as I am not privy to your actual conversation with said "religious" person, I chose to demonstrate the line of reasoning.
But by all means, continue to stick your head up your ass and think its "religion is the only source of goodness" statement, rather than a logical argument, predicated on human psychology and its biases.
> Just the odd individual going off on one on some Facebook post or other net forum from time to time.
I discuss theology on a fairly regular basis ;) and philosophy. ;) lets just say there's a fair amount of "ex-Christians" who are looking for something new to latch on. Same old shit (hate/misanthropy), just wrapped in new cloth.
> "no belief in god" as an equally valid box to tick as CofE
Just leave it blank. What to your mind, is the purpose of having an explicit box? I'm curious.
> Humanism, some sort of earth centred belief, or Buddhism thanks to its philosophy and lack of creator have all risen as religion has become increasingly irrelevant for most.
Eh. I know Buddhist philosophy well. Few people get it. My friend who is an atheist (in the truest sense) is a humanist. So am I. Thats why we're friends. :) But he respects my choice to follow a religion; same as I respect his choice, to follow none.
Case law, is the only thing that matters.
You think hanging them up from yardarms would deter them?
You want to ensure proper behavior; you have to take away the tools that let them aggregate power in the first place; and prevent it from re-occurring.
There is no "higher" standard. There is only one standard; functional, competent, accountable, just.
If you don't have a legal system that can accomplish those. Then you need to scrap your legal system. Not "hold them to a higher standard", which often is just an escape clause for preferential treatment ("Chevron deference").
LOL. This is so wrong, its not even funny.
Lawyers, are incompetent. If you haven't come to that realization yet; its because you haven't dealt with enough of them. It is -extremely- rare, even at the higher levels of pay, to get a lawyer, who actually knows the specifics of your case.
In a very real way, its all ad-hoc expertise. A series of one-off's you try, to get a compromise your client can accept.
> Lawyers know the ins and outs of this stuff.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yeah right.
in reality, its just another religion.
true atheists, are like true feminists; god/gender, simply doesn't enter into the mix.
I enjoy the company of both; but not, their intellectual progeny. And neither, do they.
its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good.
therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness".
if you want it in mathematical format ;)
you have to look deeper than the act. Which is what, you are missing. It is not enough to be 'good' (as if some objective standard can be said to exist!); it is also important to be able to enunciate the impulse to 'goodness'; and further to assure the reliability of that impulse.
This is why atheism, is and always will be, a minority religion. You lack the one characteristic, that all other religions share. A framework.
That is not to say, btw, that organized religion is "better". As with everything, the intent and education/erudition of the practitioner, makes the difference in real effect.
> so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
... or self-interest/greed.
:)
same thing you do when you listen and try to guess where the conversation is headed. ;)
also with the same flaws when you guess wrong.
its a failure of all modern business management methods.
The solution to complex deploys that re-use portions of the deployments you would want to put a context boundary on, is a series of modules that maintain their own state. But this forces you to pass large amounts of the same data (couples the modules strongly to the main file) over and over again.
As for collaborative, terragrunt works pretty good ;) provided you can give a home to the statefile.
The real problem I have with terraform/aws (or insert provider) is that its still time-intensive to actually do the deploys. The parallelization of the terraform graph, is "simple" at best.
If anyone wants to collaborate on a fork of packer/terraform, let me know on thread.
a distributed systems of ledgers, where banks attested to the amount of cash, in their vaults.
... ... ...
reading the masters, is never a waste.
...and if my workers were under the gun, they understood I was there strictly to offer assistance. shit sometimes I pull up a chair and code right next to them (now fangled as "pair programming"). sometimes people need a little help.
--
true story, I had a dick client-side manager, whose project was about 2 years overdue, getting raked by the consulting company I worked for (body shop). they put me on the project, I tuned that shit up. johnny on the spot, and six steps ahead of the project/clientside managers.
... about two months in, I'm 20 minutes from closing out the entire project (I took some dev shortcuts to speed shit up - I was always a "high velocity" developer), I'm undoing the hacks (finalizing) to turn in the project, when the clientside manager decides he's going to come in to "motivate" me. if you are a developer, whose ever worked with a cunt of a manager who doesn't know tech/their ass from their elbow.... you know what that means.
... literally minutes away from closing out his entire project, and I quit the project (then got fired from the company).
took'em a month to close it out after I left. if the work had been less quality, it would have taken them six months. ;)
Now if he'ld shut the fuck up and let me handle my business, would have taken exactly 10 more minutes. and this was after I saved his ass on the project, and saved both of their asses with a direct product demo (pieced one together in under 4 minutes with 10 minutes notice) with the client-side ceo.
--
I know who can get shit done, and who is having problems. because I know, whats going on in the projects/devs. and that comes from talking to people. not looking at status fields.
if you learn nothing else, go and see. codebase ain't always the codebase/trouble-ticket. its the people writing it.
me I just trained my reports to use their judgement where appropriate, and bring things to my attention when it looked like it was going to be a problem that needed to be addressed long-term (and was above their paygrade/resources).
for exceptional workers (blessed with danger sense, good judgement, aptitude), they had full autonomy (fill me in on your touch points but otherwise, handle your business).
you could think of it as an "evented" style of management. with direct monitoring as the core. I've always been a fan of go and see; relative to wait and read report.
to be frank, when it was just about the work, things went swimmingly. I made sure the right people had the right styles of work (worked to their strengths) and never assigned work to someone who wasn't capable of it. most importantly, I always took into account a persons limitations (physical, social, mental, personal).
day-to-day stuff they manage their own time.
... plus a 5 minute discuss/debrief on long-running projects works well with capable workers.
same with the general group dynamics (unless there is an objective problem, I let them run their own thing). and yes, that meant sometimes they had disagreements; but as long as they were adult about it, they usually sorted it out on their own.
--
same way I run my direct reports up the chain to my bosses, btw.
I tend to alter the corporate culture under my "umbrella" of responsibility.
way way better.
most of the time, 1-on-1 is personal issue (death, scheduling conflict, injury), or personality-clash.
not a big fan of endless meetings. much prefer management, to be out and about (checking on the state of things, resolving problems).
I don't normally favor firing people (unless there is something seriously wrong with their behavior). There is always a way to work things out.
A light touch, at the right time, goes way further than "constant meetings". Also being able to work to accommodate people (remembering them as people, first and foremost).
unfortunately; they are now banned ... "just for prisons". the courts will not enforce, or create any new consent decrees... "because it denies agencies their discretion".
the same discretion, that leads to rampant abuses in prisons and "detention" camps.
Go to wiki/quaternions. scroll down to about 2/3rds of the way ;)
System dynamics is the name of the field. I studied it outside a CS curriculum as a "high-level" topic, but really I took to it like a duck to water because any good coder, does this. Its the difference between a "green" coder and an "experienced" coder. And it shows up in several of the maths/fields. Anywhere there is complexity, nonlinear feedback, and long delays in feedback, you get "emergent" system behavior.
I try and tell people, you can't oversimplify things, you can only stuff the complexity somewhere else. And when you adopt a framework, its a set of tradeoffs (on where it shoves the complexity). Beware, frameworks that "hide" where they shove the complexity (because it will always bite you in the ass). Sort of like poker, if you can't spot the mark (complexity);)
I hate to tell you this, but most people doing hiring for coders, have NO IDEA about this level of coding. They're just looking for cogs. How many times have you heard, "the system is so complex, no single person at the company understands it?"... inevitably followed by a series out catastrophic failures that are largely, systemic hazards.
Thats why there is such a large "framework adoption" movemen in CS. Not because the companies can't dev the software inhouse; but because they don't understand what they are missing. The mismatch between the "coder" and the "architect" (or worse where they've fetishized the divorce between system requirements and implementation). The whole CI is about trying to close the gap using functional testing and small code updates. But it doesn't work; you can't test for what you don't know (demand-specific instability)... So now you have to instrument the entire codebase just to make it run (or take out the particularization even further ala "containers").
More than anything, this makes the difference in the quality of the coder/codebase. If you have a good grasp of how things change, rather than static targets; you don't have to go through the entire morass. You just code it right the first time.
The other thing that really matters, is domain modeling (separate from system dynamics, which is actually implementation/environment specific). Knowing your problem well, and being able to correctly pin the context boundaries, is super critical.
Last is some control theory; that is, how to auto-remediate the problems as they develop. Believe it or not, you don't need large amounts of instrumentation, in order to do this. Good solutions, automatically trade-off in direct sensing of changes in algo. performance/inputs. They are "ROBUST".