Thanks. That is an interesting insight into the current reality. I assume the developers take care of optimization of queries; set up indexes and development of schemas and DB backups is handled by devops.
I must say, again I thought (I read it somewhere?) DevOps should take care of the constant battle between Devs and Operations (I've seen enough of that in my times) by merging 1 and 2 together. But it seems just a name change, and if anything, seems worst, as a (IMHO) critical and central component, like the DB, now has totally distributed responsibilities. I would like to know what happens when e.g. a DB crashes because a filesystem is full, "because one developer made another index, because one from devops had a complaint because X was too slow".
Either the people are extremely more professional that in my times, or it must be a shitshow to look while eating pop-corn.
> DevOps should take care of the constant battle between Devs and Operations
In practice there is no way to relay "query fubar, fix" back, because we are much agile, very scrum: feature is done when the ticket is closed, new tickets are handled by product owners. Reality is antithesis of that double Ouroboros.
In practice developers write code, devops deploy "teh clouds" (writing yamls is the deving part) and we throw moar servers at some cloud db when performance becomes sub-par.
Nobody does 4 until they’ve had multiple large incidents involving DBs, or the spend gets hilariously out of control.
Then they hire DBREs because they think DBA sounds antiquated, who then enter a hellscape of knowing exactly what the root issues are (poorly-designed schemata, unperformant queries, and applications without proper backoff and graceful degradation), and being utterly unable to convince management of this (“what if we switched to $SOME_DBAAS? That would fix it, right?”).
basically, yeah. there's a white fast forward button that appears during frequently fast forwarded sections, which unsurprisingly happens to be sponsor sections.
It depends how it is done. I used to think the same way, and I would never hire someone without having seen them program live.
But having experienced leetcode-style interviews on the candidate side, it's clear to me that they are no longer about figuring out and coding a solution on the spot. Interviewers expected a solution FAST, and to match that you need to have studied and learned the answer beforehand.
> But regardless how fast we achieve net-zero carbon dioxide, there is good reason to believe that the societal impacts of extreme heat are manageable, and across different scenarios. For instance, according to the World Health Organization, even with increasing heat waves, mortality does not have to increase.
There are two big problems with this take:
1. The author takes the "100% adaptation scenario" from the paper, and ignores the rest of the discussion. Yes, if we mitigate the effects of heat waves, there will be no effect. I could have guessed that myself.
2. The part of the paper is about the deaths directly attributable to heat waves on people aged 65+. That is a super narrow metric. Maybe the author should read the "Undernutrition" part of the paper he himself quoted, which paints a very different picture. And that's not even the full picture.
In France last summer, some plants had indeed to be shut down because of the drought but:
* a minority of plants were involved, it was only an issue because it happened on top of other issues (planned maintenances delayed due to covid, corrosion issues)
* the problem isn't actually the drought, it was the heat. The plants could keep operating, but they would have rejected water too hot, in breach of environmental regulations.
Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that.
At scale, you would need to factor in the durability of the media. [0] suggests that some types of bluray disks can last 20 to 50 years. Hard drives typically struggle to last 10 years. So if you need to replace hard drives 5x more than bluray disks, maybe it changes the economics.
That's a random study I found on Google, of course, I'm sure Meta has more accurate data on that.
Besides, you need to build the same kind of redundancy in both cases, so that shouldn't influence the choice.
> At scale, you would need to factor in the durability of the media. [0] suggests that some types of bluray disks can last 20 to 50 years. Hard drives typically struggle to last 10 years. So if you need to replace hard drives 5x more than bluray disks, maybe it changes the economics.
Also consider the economics of actually retrieving and indexing the data. If you have to spend 2 hours looking for a blu-ray/DVD with the data you need, then maybe it changes the economics back to HDDs, which can look up a file within 20 TB of data almost instantaneously using an NTFS Journal.
The resistance is already there, it's already happening. Car owners in Paris are furious, and bike infrastructure is already taking away space from roads. High traffic roads in the center have been downright closed and made bike-only.
It is feasible because Paris (the city itself, excluding suburbs) is a very crowded city, where owning a car has always been a luxury. People living in Paris itself who can afford a car, with the associated parking space and everything, are a minority.
People living in the suburbs are more likely to own cars and drive through Paris, but they don't elect the Paris mayor, so their opinion doesn't have much weight.
i ride a bike. i just practice empathy. you should try sometimes. i live in paris and id rather spend tax money to help less wealthy suburban people commute by car to their work rather than make the life of a few 1% rich parisians better. some people live far because they cant afford to live close by their work place, they cant change 2 or 3 trains to go to work especially looking at the abysmal paris transportation continuity of service. they end up commuting for 4hours of their day every day. (it is always late, always canceled, dirty, polluted, thieves everywhere and I commuted for 10 years as a student)
Then fix the trains rather than throwing away more money forcing those rich 1%ers into cars rather than letting them get out of the way. The miniscule fraction of land required for a viable bicycle network frees up more space for suburbanites to drive in than tens or hundreds of road widening projects.
It is physically impossible to have everyone in many areas of paris drive, because after a parking garage and a fifth of a piece to drive in there's no space left.
Empathy is not forcing those poor suburbanites to spend a third of their income on a car.
Empathy is not taking up 2/3rds of the land in the outer regions with car infrastructure rather than housing and productive commecial uses.
Empathy is not forcing sparse development for the sake of landlords' property values.
You should try it some time.
Also the entire premise that the actually poor suburbanites are all driving into the city every day is absurd. Mosstof them would be paying more for their car and a parking spot than their wage.
i dont understand how you cannot see it only favor rich people and landlords…
rich people will always drive car. they will use uber. and you know where they come from? the suburbs. young unemployed people are doing uber drivers. so they will drive rich parisians and chinese/americans tourists on weekdays and on the weekend because they are forbidden to drive in paris they ll commute via the 1 train per hour they get from their suburb and that is only if there is no construction on their line, neither strike, neither canceled trains, nor delayed.
fixing trains is not possible when you have to take 3-4 trains to commute… not even talking about people in villages with no trains. a car costs a few thousand euros. you can even get an electric car almost for free if you are on low income. a 1 year train pass costs 800 euros+ and that is if it covers your lines.
you are crazy to believe everyone would bike. again rich and healthy people bike. poor people dont bike, old people dont bike, sick people or people with a handicap dont bike. you are creating a society for the wealthy and the healthy. its what facists wanted to do. this is not empathy. go out of your confort zone go live in a parisian suburb in 93 and see how is the life there when you need to start your day at night and there is no train. go try to ride a bike when your work is a 4 hours drive. paris is one of the densest city in the world i dont know what you talking abt additional housing.
I commuted via bus/RER/metro from the suburbs through Paris to La Defense for many years and didn't have that experience. It's not Japan but outside of strikes it was reliable enough. Also, the 'less wealthy' folks usually can't afford nor want all the expenses associated with car ownership in France. It's much more affordable to get a Navigo pass.
At every single org I've been where Datadog has been considered, the conclusion has been "Yes, it would be cool, but we really can't justify the price."
Yes, in theory, in the middle scale, you should outsource things, but in practice, it only works if the managed service is at the right price.
It is not an inconsequential oversight. Most people will at least have sessions open to internal/private systems, sometimes sensitive credentials. And part of the teams will go see clients with their company laptops. You absolutely do not want people to be careless about leaving their computers unlocked.
Hence the "(effectively)" in front of inconsequential. This isn't something that will definitely and automatically result in a lot of damage, it usually won't cause any damage at all (especially if people work on desktop machines in an office that opens to a small number of badges). It may be a vector for a critical breach if enough stars align, and there happens to be an attacker nearby that is motivated, capable and willing to take the risk, and the machine is completely unobserved for long enough, but for most people, that's going to be pretty rare. Setting a short non-overridable screensaver delay is still a good idea, and screen locking should be part of security trainings and all that. It's one possible vector for deep penetration and should be treated accordingly.
But if you're effectively harassing people out of a part of their salary, I'd expect the reason to be something truly overridingly critical, and in all settings where I've seen this sort of rule instituted, it was far from that – and if it were, why would you resort to bottom-up hazing to control that risk? That disincentivizes actually improving security (by giving people another pretext to depend on uncompromised user machines), oversights absolutely will still happen and any damage that actually does occur will be hidden and conceiled even harder, since now you've created an emotional link to public shaming and people respond to that viscerally.
Developers handle 1). Devops handle 2)/3)/5). Nobody does 4)