I personally am more fond of provoking an "angstschreeuw" in English speakers by asking them to pronounce "slechtstschrijvend" or "zachtstschrijdend" and watching them recoil in horror at the consonant clusters[0][1].
I've also noticed that when I did my version of this app more than 3 years ago (https://tv.istasyon.app). Somehow the ads are limited or gone if you play videos as embedded. At some point, I thought YouTube had fixed that but seemingly not. The easiest way to do it is to find the YouTube video URL and replace that part `/watch?v=` with `/embed/`, then voila!
Vaccine-related immunity is related to several factors. Among them:
1) The rate of "vaccine escape" of the pathogen - that is, how well new variants of the pathogen can escape recognition by a vaccine. This varies from pathogen to pathogen.
2) The strength of the immune response to the vaccine. For example, live-attenuated vaccines are basically natural infections.
3) Whether or not your immune memory is occasionally boosted by coming into contact with someone who is shedding the pathogen.
All of these vary based on the pathogen and vaccine pairing. And critically, for COVID-19, we don't know several of these parameters.
We aren't entirely certain how long the corona vaccines will be protective.
Part of it is that there's tens of millions of people infected with coronavirus right now, giving it lots of room to mutate. There's maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people infected with polio.
It hasn’t yet been possible to measure if the coronavirus vaccine protects for more than a couple of years. The first human trial subjects only received it 14 months ago.
The old oral polio vaccine (Sabin) didn't provide lifetime immunity like the newer injection. (Reading about the immunities both confer, I'm not clear on the distinction between "gut immunity" preventing asymptomatic shedding, versus "immunity" that prevents the virus from causing serious nervous system disease)
While many raves are like that, many others are not. I do agree that the ones that are like that are annoying. But I wouldn’t not go to any rave-like scenes just because it may end up that way. I’d lose out on too much, personally.
The only idea conveyed in your message that has any factual basis is that psychedelics should be taken with a lot of care, preparation, and consideration, including pre existing susceptibilities.
Everything else you said builds on top of this idea as if they are also fact based, but they are not. Let’s not make the social acceptance of psychedelics even harder than they already have been made to be.
You have noticed something very interesting about the nature of human consciousness and the way it conceptualizes the world, and the events, ideas, people, etc within it. Other examples of this phenomenon can be observed in this thread, and all other threads on any topic.
I propose that this phenomenon can be productively explored and ~understood with the usage of psychedelics if one goes in with this specific intention.
I think this is a good answer. I'll add that as soon as you need to do something slightly more complex, without something like k8s you aren't going to be happy with your life. With k8s, it's almost a 1 liner. For example, adding a load balancer or a network volume or nginx or an SSL cert or auto scaling or...or...or...
> What? Setting up a load balancer or nginx is considered complex now?
It's not complex to set up a load balancer in a given specific environment. But it's another kind of ask to say "set up a load balancer, but also make it so that the load balancer also exists in future dev environments that can be auto-set-up and auto-teared-down. And also make it so that load balancer will work on dev laptops, AWS, Azure, google, our private integration test cluster on site, and on our locally-hosted training environment, with the same configuration script." All of these things can be done in k8s, and basically are by default when you add your load balancer in k8s. They can be done other ways, too, or just ignored and not done, also. But k8s offers a standardized way to approach these kinds of things.
> In my mind standardisation is how we really solve problems in much of software development.
I've been having this thought very often lately.
The only way for humans to do something faster is to use a machine. Any machine is built on some assumption that something is repeatedly true, that some things can be repeatedly interacted with in the same way.
Finding true invariants is very hard, but our world is increasingly malleable. Over time it is getting easier to invent new invariants and pad things out so that the invariant holds.
It's true not just for machines but engineering in general. Whether it's civil or mechanical or electronic or semiconductor engineering, their foundation is built on setting boundary conditions to make the natural world predictable so that it can be reliably manipulated. Things most often go wrong when those conditions are poorly understood, constrained, or modeled such as when using an unproven material, using imprecise parts, or ignoring thermal expansion when designing structural components.
Engineers have a plethora of quality control standards and centuries of built up knowledge to make this chaos manageable and the problems tractable.
I'm fine with standardization, as long as I set the standard. For standard 0, I propose that the only spelling for "standardization" will be with a 'z' (which is itself pronounced "zee").
I think the downvotes are missing the point. This is a key problem with standards: sometimes they standardize around something unreasonable. And tech is already riddled with all sorts of standards which are half-implemented in n different ways.
I think a better approach would be to have a specification for more robust negotiation protocols. When I see "standardisation," I already know that this means the same thing as "standardization" and furthermore that I should expect to see "colour"/"honour," organizations referred to in plural, "from today" rather than "beginning today" or "starting today," and even "jumpers" over "sweaters," "lorries" over "trucks," "biscuits" over "cookies," and more interrogative sentences in conversation. A British English speaker likely does the same process in reverse.
Perhaps I should clarify that "demanding American spelling is unreasonable" was specific to the context of HN (or other open discussion forums with international readership).
Within say, the volunteer-maintained documentation of MDN, the tradeoffs are quite different. There, ease of reading for reference by busy coders is much more valuable relative to ease of typing up a new contribution. Frequent switches between "color" and "colour" become a time-wasting distraction.
MDN should pick a standard and insist on it. And if Ubuntu chooses to require British spelling throughout, I'd say that's good.
Some of those requirements are far-fetched. Multiple cloud environments AND on-prem?
Ansible and Vagrant are not perfect, but I think they are far simpler than a single node k8s instance, and more representative of an actual production environment.
I’ve seen my company go multi cloud provider just to appeal to a single client. Now we’ll need multi cloud, multi continent setup to handle European clients. And I’m sure in another 2 years we’ll need our whole stack in China to support another clients requirements.
This is not my strength in any way, but hearing from those teams, Kubernetes will be a godsend
Setting up one is easy. Setting up one that gives multiple separate teams the ability to configure their services, and apply those changes to servers around the world and in different environments, repeatedly and safely, is harder.
We just spent months at my workplace working on a system to reliably define and configure a set of parallel silo'ed integrated datastores, services, and network stack within Kubernetes/ISTIO (and AWS), and to reliably upgrade new software revisions within those silos and to account for the changing "shape" of the configuration/content in these silos. It's repeatable and safe now, but it took a lot of effort.
There's huge difference between manually setting up load balancer - let's say HAproxy - and being able to just declare in an application that it needs "this and this configuration to route HTTP traffic to it."
The time I spent managing HAproxy for 5 services was bigger than the time I spent managing load-balancing and routing using k8s for >70 applications that together required >1000 load balanced entrypoints.
It's a lever for the sysadmin to spend less time on unnecessary work.
Anyone can ssh into a server and apt-get haproxy and tweak the configuration and get it "working" where the definition of working is accepting and routing traffic. But that's just a hobby setup. When people say setting up a load balancer is complex they are talking about professional setups, not a one off software install on a single server.
But I want to be able to update my haproxy config with a git push, and roll it back with a single command, without sshing into anything, if something goes wrong. I want my everyday administration to be simple. Not the initial setup.
Now set it up in 30 data centers around the world, with the ability for dozens of different teams to add and change their applications, and across multiple staging and QA environments.
My what and what? :P I do get your point, it is "easy" for some definition of such, but to be fair, k8s would automatically put the ip and port in for my part of it all at least.
You can use something like dokku for most of what you cited for much less overhead, if you are not planning to use the "highly available" feature for sure
