I dropped out of school in 9th grade. I make $200K a year. A friend of mine has a college degree and has been unemployed for a year.
There is no uniform standard of education in the US. Kids in the South are being taught that evolution is on par with intelligent design. Poor black kids in Baltimore have on average a 3rd grade reading level in high school, while rich kids a few counties away are taught when to use a backdoor roth ira. Don't even mention "no child left behind".
It's both funny and sad when people find out how the real world works and get all indignant. "How dare they do a thing they're legally allowed to do! Rabble rabble rabble!!!" Glassdoor is trying to make money off you, like every other free site on the internet, and they will do whatever the law allows them to. Welcome to planet Earth.
Meanwhile, all the commenters in here are overreacting as usual, clearly not having read any of the terms of the website, like the part where it says your name is not disclosed until you explicitly elect to share it. But hey let's not let facts stop us from freaking out.
> The "simple" in S3 is a misnomer. S3 is not actually simple. It's deep.
Simple doesn't mean "not deep". It means having the fewest parts needed in order to accomplish your requirements.
If you require a distributed, centralized, replicated, high-availability, high-durability, high-bandwidth, low-latency, strongly-consistent, synchronous, scalable object store with HTTP REST API, you can't get much simpler than S3. Lots of features have been added to AWS S3 over the years, but the basic operation has remained the same.
> It means having the fewest parts needed in order to accomplish your requirements.
That is exactly what "deep" means, in the terminology of this post (from Ousterhout's book A Philosophy of Software Design). Simple means "not complex" (see also Rich Hickey's talk Simple Made Easy: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy/), while "deep" means providing/having a lot of internally-complex functionality via a small interface. The latter is a better description of S3 (which is what you seem to be saying too) than "simple" which would mean there isn't much to it.
Hickey's definition of simple is wrong. It's not the opposite of complex at all. They are not opposites, nor mutually exclusive.
- Easy is when something does not require much effort.
- Simple means the least complex it can be and still work.
- Complex means there are lots of components.
These are all quite different concepts:
- Easy is a concept that distinguishes the amount of work needed to use a solution
- Simple is a concept that distinguishes whether or not there is an excess number of interacting properties in a system
- Complex is a concept describing the quality of having a number of interacting properties in a system
Hickey's talk is useful in terms of thinking about software, but it also contains many over-generalizations which are incorrect and lead to incorrect thinking about things that aren't software. (Even some of his declarations about software are wrong)
"Deep", in the context of software complexity, probably only makes sense in terms of describing the number of layers involved in a piece of technology. You could make something have many layers, and it could still be simple, or be complex, or easy.
Hi-Viz is only useful if the driver(s) are actually looking and paying attention. There's plenty of examples of drivers hitting static objects that are festooned with hi-viz colouring and reflectives.
Bicycle helmet safety standards are generally for speeds up to 12mph and/or a static drop from 2m onto a hard surface. They are specifically not designed to withstand the forces/accelerations involved in a multi-vehicle collision.
(One of my bug-bears is when people point to a destroyed bicycle helmet and claim that it saved their life. Helmets are designed to compress and are particularly weak when subjected to tensile/shear forces. If a helmet splits in two, then it most likely wasn't being effective)
The scary part of this to me is biking on country roads, especially with 55mph speed limits that big pick-ups regularly blow past. I live in a rural town, and I would be terrified to bring a bike outside slower town roads.
That's just one logistical problem (of many). The real reason we don't have flying cars is because we don't want them bad enough. If we spent enough capital, we could solve all the logistical and technical challenges and have flying cars. But the cost and effort it would take is so significant that nobody has yet had a good enough reason to do it.
Planes are good enough for going a long distance fast, and cars/trucks/trains are good enough for going a long distance slow. We could make a flying car, but for what? For individual people to go a moderate-distance fast? To go a short distance really fast? Cars and planes are good enough for our needs today without the huge investment in development of a new tech.
This is exactly the same reason internal combustion engines have ruled the roads for 100 years. Electric cars were preferred over ICE 100 years ago, but gasoline enabled us to go further for cheaper, so we accepted all the downsides, and industry made it convenient. It's only because we're suddenly afraid of our climate killing us that we're switching back to electric.
Every American utility company I have ever looked into has numerous crimes and controversies associated with it. It's kind of weird.
I actually suspect it's due to them being publicly traded. They literally are not allowed to do things that would jeopardize the share price, so they will hurt themselves and people in order to make a minor profit increase YOY. You shouldn't need to be a capitalist enterprise (with the whole "infinite revenue growth" thing) if your purpose is just to make sure your customers - who won't ever really grow much, because, you know, only so many babies born etc - have power, water, etc. But as publicly traded companies, their first purpose is just to increase shareholder revenue. If you end up (accidentally) burning down a forest, poisoning some communities, or compromising a state election with a fake candidate, that may just be an unfortunate side effect in the service of increasing the stock price.
"Fiduciary duty" is probably the single most damaging policy/legislative decision that was made in US history. Even though it technically doesn't force companies to chase short term gains above all else, it still creates enough perverse incentives to create a lot of harm.
The public companies also suffer from corruption and such. I guess there just must be some law of a universe where if you have a sufficient sized captive base of income, people who might be inclined to abuse their position to take advantage of the situation will strive to take advantage of the situation. Then it becomes not a matter of if there is any corruption, but when will you end up with a corruptible individual in a position that can be corrupted.
Maybe these organizations or government bodies can be organized like a RAID away. Mirror these positions of power and use redundant pools. Identify corrupt bits by comparing results between these mirrors and hot swap the corrupted positions for a new candidate. Incrementally replace your array on schedule to avoid chance of future corruption and to mitigate batch effect.
IMHO the problem is that utilities are like no other company in that they have a monopoly but are supposed to be reigned in by regulators. But the vast majority of regulatory bodies are either captured or incompetent at regulation.
Public versus privately traded doesn't matter as much as the fundamental conflict, wherein they profit more when the costs increase, and there's no penalty for literally killing people.
HIPAA violations result in jail time for executives. Meanwhile PGE illegally raids safety fund accounts to pay executive bonuses while regular people are killed due to failing infrastructure.
CPUC and PGE executives need to face serious consequences, and most certainly jail time, for their malfeasance.
Maybe every publicly traded company should be subject to a fiduciary liability: when convicted, the judge can order an imposed hit on share price, and forbid dividends for a lengthy period.
The presumed legal duty to break the law in the interest of shareholders is grossly exaggerated... Nobody can sue you for failing to commit a crime on their behalf.
Agreed. If Linux were a distributed OS, people would just be running a distro with systemd instead of K8s. (Of course, systemd is just another kubernetes, but without the emphasis on running distributed systems)
That whole concept is bizarre. It's like wanting to fly, so rather than buy a plane, you take a Caprice Classic and try to make it fly.
If CoreOS actually wanted to make distributed computing easier, they'd make patches for the Linux kernel (or make an entirely different kernel). See the many distributed OS kernels that were made over 20 years ago. But that's a lot of work. So instead they tried to go the cheap and easy route. But the cheap and easy route ends up being much shittier.
There's no commercial advantage to building a distributed OS, which is why no distributed OS is successful today. You would need a crazy person to work for 10 years on a pet project until it's feature-complete, and then all of a sudden everyone would want to use it. But until it's complete, nobody would use it, and nobody would spend time developing it. Even once it's created, if it's not popular, still nobody will use it (you can use Plan9 today, but nobody does).
When people call Kubernetes a "great piece of technology", I find it the same as people saying the United States is the "greatest country in the world". Oh yeah? Great in what sense? Large? Absolutely. Powerful? Definitely. But then the adjectives sort of take a turn... Complicated? Expensive? Problematic? Threatening? A quagmire? You betcha.
If there were an alternative to Kubernetes that were just 10% less confusing, complicated, opaque, monolithic, clunky, etc, we would all be using it. But because Kubernetes exists, and everyone is using it, there's no point in trying to make an alternative. It would take years to reach feature parity, and until you do, you can't really switch away. It's like you're driving an 18-wheeler, and you think it kinda sucks, but you can't just buy and then drive a completely different 18 wheeler for only a couple of your deliveries.
You probably will end up using K8s at some point in the next 20 years. There's not really an alternative that makes sense. As much as it sucks, and as much as it makes some things both more complicated and harder, if you actually need everything it provides, it makes no sense to DIY, and there is no equivalent solution.
People forgot just how much of a mess Mesos environment was in comparison.
And often pushed Nomad to this day surprises me with randomly missing a feature or two that turns out to be impactful enough to want to deal with more complexity because ultimately the result was less complexity in total.
There is no uniform standard of education in the US. Kids in the South are being taught that evolution is on par with intelligent design. Poor black kids in Baltimore have on average a 3rd grade reading level in high school, while rich kids a few counties away are taught when to use a backdoor roth ira. Don't even mention "no child left behind".
Maybe let's calm down a bit with the judgement.