Here's some anecdotal evidence - a friend worked at CrowdStrike and was horrified at how incredibly disorganised the whole place was. They said it was completely unsurprising to them that the outage occurred. More surprising to them was that it hadn't happened more often given what a clusterfrock the place was.
I feel like your experience was quite different to mine. I used TCP/IP in the late 80s at university and doing commercial contract work. I remember OSI existing but at the places I worked it was treated as less common.
While it's still debated, it seems likely that the BPAs in plastic will be classified as mildly carcinogenic at some point. It's probably not a big concern to be touching your phone case but maybe more so if it's millions of particles permanently inside you.
The submarines are almost certainly useless. We won't get them for decades. We're not even allowed to service the nuclear reactors when we do get them. And the technology is already an old one and will likely already be superceded by the new much quieter air-independent fuel cell and lithium battery technologies which other countries are adopting.
Air-independent fuel cell and battery powered submarines are not at all a replacement for nuclear submarines, nor even really competing with them. No matter how good the tech becomes, diesel-electric subs running fuel cell AIPs will always have shorter range, less submerged time, and lower speeds than nuclear-powered submarines. Each time they surface, even to periscope level, the chances of detection go up massively.
That's why diesel-electric submarines are best suited for coastal defence, especially of small countries, whereas larger countries with huge areas of territory to protect benefit from having nuclear submarines.
Whether it's the right decision for Australia to get these subs under AUKUS is a fair debate, but it's not at all accurate to claim that they're using 'old' technology that is being superseded by AIP.
Which of those options do you view as 'the style'? One block, two blocks (core library and others), or three (core library, 3rd party, same-source-tree).
The first rule of any style guide should be "adhere to the conventions of surrounding code." So the answer to your question is it depends on what the convention in the file (and surrounding files) has already chosen. If there is only one grouping and you're adding enough imports that you have to choose between making two or three, then I would say use two because that is what the canonical & normative style guide recommends [0], but if you're working in an organization that has chosen to use goimports or has alternative guidance in its org-specific style guide then go ahead and make it three groups.
This thing happens a lot in other fields. For example, once a scientist is discovered to have committed fraud by manipulating a photograph of results in a paper, people immediately start looking at their other papers and find other examples as it is very unlikely that someone will do this only once.
In general it seems regular pattern in fraud. All sorts and specially financial. Things start small and then they are either repeated or grown in scale and eventually are caught. There is probably lot of one time fraud that does not get caught. But serial cases are the pattern when caught.
This is common in cases of plagiarism, fabulists, & serial fabricators: "there's never just one cockroach in the kitchen". The same way Elisabeth Bik will spot one falsified image in a scientific paper and then immediately flag another dozen papers by the same author.
Once you start looking with the assumption of bad faith, the problems often jump out. Before that, no one wants to look, and there's preference falsification and silence. It's likely that some people noticed both of those before, but decided not to die on that hill. Similar to how apparently quite a few Democrats had noticed Joe Biden's decline over the past year, and concerning incidents back at least 5 years, but kept silent until it became safe to leak to journalists or go on the record once everyone else was too.
So, when you don't see clusters exposed, and people getting away with the usual excuses like 'it was just an isolated incident, a single misjudgment', you know they are still there - that just means that they are going undetected. Many fabricators similar to Francesca Gino or Dan Ariely have gotten away with it because 'oh no, the original data was lost / proprietary / confidential / mere summary', and it's just not possible after the fact to find the smoking gun, rather than some acrid smoke and an empty shell casing, which could have been dropped by anyone. (This is why 'plagiarism' is such an effective audit and the DNA testing of academia: because a plagiarist is probably doing those other things too, but you can't prove that as easily as you can 'this paragraph is identical to a previously published paragraph but there was no citation to it'.)
Classical musicians train for decades to develop good musical memory and the ability to audiate scores (read them and hear what they should sound like). Combine that with the fact that the crowd that likes new music is highly-educated and tight-knit and it's no surprise.
The same goes for professors who spend decades learning to understand experiments who can sniff out bullshit in papers.
I don't think VLIW is incompatible with virtualisation. The amount of CPU state you need to load and save on context switches is a little higher than other architectures so it has a minor effect on the efficiency of virtualisation. But other than that there's no reason VLIW can't be virtualised.
Not that the Apollos actually had hardware support for virtualisation features such as nested page tables. These machines were from the days before virtualisation was popular. Only IBM mainframes had it back then AFAIK.
Businesses would be crazy to continue with Crowdstrike after this. It's going to cause billions in losses to a huge number of companies. If I was a risk assessment officer at a large company I'd be speed dialling every alternative right now.
A friend of mine who used to work for Crowdstrike tells me they're a hot mess internally and it's amazing they haven't had worse problems than this already.
That sounds like any other companies I have ever worked for: looks great from the outside but a hot mess on the inside.
I have never worked for a company where everything is smooth sailing.
What I noticed is that the smaller the company, the less hot mess they are but at the same time they're also struggling to pay the bill because they don't innovate fast.
reply