I mean, this is the case for a lot of things? Has always been the case.
If you host friends over for dinner at your house a lot, nobody will ever say you are subject to the same rules as a restaurant. You start letting other people host dinners at your house, and things could change. You start letting people solicit your place for paid dinners, similar outcome. Do it once, nobody will probably know or care. Continue to do it at scale, though, and I don't know why you would expect to not be subject to regulations.
The problem is obviously that the government shouldn't be regulating private speech. They pass these rules by saying "look how big Facebook is, they need to be regulated" when the actual problem is that they need to be decentralized. But then the rules don't apply only to Facebook, and worse, are designed under the assumption of a centralized service so that they entrench the thing that should be eliminated.
But there is nothing obvious about this? For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means. You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example. For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house. You similarly could not claim free speech to rent or loan out rooms of your house for storage.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.
Do I think there are probably some concerning ways those burdens can be placed on folks? Certainly. But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection. See the food industry.
> For one, this is speech that can only be done using otherwise regulated means.
This is the fraud every would-be censor perpetrates to establish their chokepoint. First, invent allegedly "neutral" rules that only large entities can comply with, causing only large entities to remain. Then lean on the large entities to censor whatever you want in exchange for political favors or lack of enforcement of other laws.
> You couldn't claim "free speech" and build a radio tower that transmits long distances, as an easy example.
Which is another great example of them doing the thing. The government couldn't spare a single frequency for unlicensed long-distance directional radio communications?
Moreover, the excuse for censoring the airwaves is that there is finite capacity in a broadcast medium, so how is that supposed to apply to a unicast service whose transfer capacity can be increased without bound by running more fiber?
> For that matter, you can't claim free speech to allow concerts at your house.
So if the government wants to declare that you meeting with two other people for the purpose of conveying information to them is a "concert" and prohibit it from any place that isn't a "concert hall" (which is prohibitively expensive for you to own), that seems fine to you?
> As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you want to take the effort to connect and verify the different parties that are going to communicate with your server, you are almost certainly going to remain free to do so.
All you have to do is the thing which is morally and economically unsound.
> But we already require inspections and other similar activities for things that individuals can do at home without an inspection.
Except that now you want to do it even when they are doing it at home.
I find it amusing to jump straight to the "because some species lack watches." It isn't like humans started with them. Kids aren't even really able to use a clock for quite a few years.
Article is still neat, mind. I am curious why it is not more compelling to think in terms of reserves and duty cycles. Build up enough energy to get you through periods of needed energy and you will settle on a cycle that matches when energy is available. At least, if you want to minimize complete depletion. Which is about the only thing I would expect evolution to fully avoid. Or, at least, the ones that didn't will have died off.
Oddly, I would say that this often exposes complexity? Not that that is a valid reason to go all in on it. But some things, like updating service contracts, are complicated. Indeed, anything that makes it look like many services all deployed in unison is almost certainly hiding one hell of a failure case.
While I can kind of see what you are aiming at, a basic button down and clean pants go a long way. Keep it ironed and clean, and you go even further. No need for the anything that looks like a uniform.
It depends on your use case. Storing WGS84 coordinates as 32-bit floats can incur on errors of several meters. It might be good for your fitness tracking application, but not for serious GIS usage.
Case in point: many years ago I was working on some software to generate 3D models from drone pictures. The first step of the pipeline was to convert from WGS84 to ECEF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered,_Earth-fixed_co...), an absolute Cartesian coordinate system. Well, it turns out that at the scales involved, 6.371 million meters, 32-bit floats have a precision of half a meter, so the resulting models were totally broken.
Isn't that more of using a float to represent the number? Would be akin to trying to represent .5. Which, if your goal is to represent decimals, you are best off not using floats.
Granted, just storing it as a 32 bit integer is probably difficult for most uses. BCD just isn't common for most programmers. (Or fixed point, in general.)
You should be able to do the calculations in fixed point, easily enough? Indeed, it used to be that most embedded systems would use fixed point due to lack of float hardware.
I would actually think fixed point would be beneficial for its accuracy being a bit more controlled than floating point is. Yes, you lose the range of floating point. But I just don't see how that is relevant for numbers that are constrained to +/- 180 by definition.
That all said, I cannot and do not argue against that it is faster to get going with basic float/doubles, due to how commonly those are supported in base libraries.
I challenge the idea that first request latency is bottle necked by language choice. I can see how that is plausible, mind. Is it a concern for the vast majority of developers?
Nevermind the collapse of salaries flowing into the area which is destroying what the market demand is willing to pay for the existing stock? This crowd, of any, should be familiar with how many jobs flowed into that area and the promise of how many more it would be. Only for that to basically evaporate overnight.
Like, yes. At a base level, you need enough supply to keep prices down. But, the entire point of supply and demand is that it is two curves that intersect. And the demand curve, if pushed up, will also increase prices. Could you over supply such that you drive down the unit costs in a way that keeps prices down? Of course it is plausible. It is not typical market behavior, though. For that, you need excessive spending by someone.
A lot of the increase in bills people are seeing come from necessary upgrades to the distribution infrastructure. Something that was going to be happening anyway.
If you host friends over for dinner at your house a lot, nobody will ever say you are subject to the same rules as a restaurant. You start letting other people host dinners at your house, and things could change. You start letting people solicit your place for paid dinners, similar outcome. Do it once, nobody will probably know or care. Continue to do it at scale, though, and I don't know why you would expect to not be subject to regulations.
reply