There is a fine line between being opposed to fat acceptance and thinking performative cruelty works.
(It's does not. It made me so much worse. I have nothing but bad things to say about the medical "professional" who catastrophized my diagnosis to "wake me up" and then shrugged when my response was depressed resignation.)
There are several studies now showing that symptoms reported by overweight patients are taken less seriously by medical professionals, it’s not just a matter of people “being nice”. It’s actually providing a lower standard of care.
I should clarify that my doctor explicitly lied to me (found out by requesting my medical file after moving) to shock me on purpose because of his own fifth grade understanding of psychology.
Whether patients make good choices is completely independent from whether doctors provide everyone with equal quality of care.
Specifically, doctors are less likely to investigate issues that can be explained by obesity than they are in non-fat people.
For example, if you have high blood pressure and you are a normal weight your doctor will probably look into underlying conditions that can cause high blood pressure. Being overweight is an independent risk factor for high blood pressure but it doesn’t reduce the likelihood of the other risk factors. Doctors are less likely to look into an underlying cause for high blood pressure if you are overweight.
Doctors are probably also less likely to look for other causes of chronic cough in smokers.
In general doctors are looking for the most obvious potential causes of a health problem. If someone on high dose anabolic steroids went to the doctor with him blood pressure, the doctor would probably tell them to cut out the steroids as the obvious answer rather than exploring other reasons the patient’s blood pressure might be high.
Where do you think the contradiction is? A CPU limit of 1 does not prevent an application from using 8 cores worth of compute at once, it just limits the compute to 1 core per 100ms slice on average, and usually that means getting unscheduled for 7/8 of the slice, if the app is using all available resources and nothing else contests them (weighted by requests).
According to the documentation, CPU requests don't cap usage. They're not used for that. They're used to gauge how much CPU you say you will use. They're used for allocation and pod assignment. They never throttle you. They never cap you. According to the documentation, CPU limits are the only mechanism to prevent exceeding your resource allocation. You directly said the opposite of that. If that's not what they actually do, then FIX. THE. FUCKING. DOCUMENTATION. Either the documentation is wrong or incomplete, or you are wrong or incomplete.
That's the contradiction. And, to be clear, I think you're both wrong and incomplete.
It's partially a problem that how it's being documented is either really misleading or fundamentally incomplete. That may be because that's just not how Google imagined Kubernates was going to be used. If you need to understand the CPU scheduler to be able to use this option in the first place, then the documentation should explain that directly or by referring to more information elsewhere.
I don't see the contradiction to what I said or what the prior commenter said.
CPU requests still protect you from something using all the resources, because the weights correspond to your number vs all the other pods on that node, and the scheduler will not schedule pods so they exceed the total available resources.
So more accurately, requests prevent exceeding limits under contestion, and limits always do.
Some workloads will also consume all the resources you hand them without being latency sensitive at all.
I've handled outages of CPU time available getting suddenly compressed (we were running pod priorities with staging/prod on one cluster and up to 70% spots in 2019) and then learning that some very important applications outgrew their original requests, gone unnoticed because limits were removed a year or so prior. You can fix this with monitoring/right-sizing tools, but that requires your org to not be dysfunctional, and my style of platform engineering usually has to account for the org being very dysfunctional.
It's not as much an "overhead" as it will mess up your latency. Limits don't stop you from using available resources until you hit the relative allowance in a CFS window, so a 1 CPU limit on a 32 CPU machine at worst gives you 32 cores for 3.3ms every 100ms.
Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean rejecting science and 50 years of research in an area where there’s a rare 99% consensus among scientists (check: Lynas et al., Environmental Research Letters), just because some guys on social media said so.
The best kind of propaganda is when people believe they're "thinking on their own" while repeating some convenient lie to keep the grift going. If you think that doesn't apply to you, then it's working as designed.
At least I am falling to the best kind of propaganda. While the other side, who does not apparently even believe they're "thinking on their own", is falling to a much poorer one...
>Have you read the IPCC report? Do you have any kind of physics education and experience in real world thermodynamics at scale?
No and no, but I find it alarming when even trivial questions regarding reliability of methods used to estimate past temperatures are met with ridicule and appeal to authority...
And you are not doing much better. Instead of being curious and asking me what I actually think, or why I think it, you start throwing me research. You also assume that everyone who claims "to think" are coming from some propaganda resource. It is actually the shallow claims from the "convinced" that trigger my skepticism.
It's not about the past temperatures though, is it?
It's about the increasing insulation factor of the atmosphere (unquestionably caused by human fossil fuel extraction) that is trapping more heat.
> you start throwing me research.
That backs that point about insulation.
> Instead of being curious and asking me what I actually think
You either believe in and understand gravity modelling or you don't, either way you fall, clocks advance at different in different frames, etc. A Foucault pendulum swings in a plane independent of the earth rotation regardless of what any human thinks. The starting point for understanding the claims about climate are rooted in physics.
Hence the need to ask people about their foundational knowledge.
> You also assume that everyone who claims "to think" are coming from some propaganda resource.
No, I tend to believe they haven't thought the basic high school level thermodynamics through.
> It is actually the shallow claims from the "convinced"
I worked through via experiments and a few decades in exploration geophysics myself.
Worth a mention that most of the solid data comes not from "the convinced" or eco warrior hippies, it comes from cold war atomic and anti submarine research, mineral and energy exploration, etc.
Extreme weather changes can be natural. The earth has no contract with humans to keep the weather regulated perfectly.
Actually that is the question we are trying to answer when we look at past trends. Is this manmade (if so we can reverse it)? But the sad thing is that we don't have an techniques that can reliably do it. So we take the best we have and declare with unjustifiable certainty, "facts" about past temperatures..
Actually the reverse is true. I would encourage you to think more and actually read and understand what 99% of science says since 50 years and why so many people come to the same results
GitHub Actions was always a mess. Because it is a Microsoft product.
If you want to have a horrible time, try reading some of the runner code. It's early 2010s-style Windows-First, MSFT C# crud that has trouble not racing several threads to inconclusive status codes.
Yes. That was my impression too. Github Actions aren't a good product in many ways. It's also very complex and requires quite a bit more infrastructure than the rest of Github. Unfortunately, I don't think that the commercial side of the product would allow it to improve in the direction of better quality / uptime. It's cursed to be forever like MS Outlook: whenever it changes it's for the worse, even though it was never good.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, because it has all the signals of a joke, but it might be closer to true than I'd like to admit.
At my work, the average quality has gone up with "blindly trusting Opus". The failure modes are horrendous and the code is verbose as shit, but it still works better. Most "engineers" aren't very good at writing code.
AI has a corrosive effect on everything it touches. I go to work and notice that everyone else is on a path to mentally checking out. Nobody values anyone's time anymore, nobody seems to weigh the cost of maintenance or conceptual work given creation is seemingly free. People get used to taking shortcuts, both for their work and also in their thinking.
I feel like the only sane person left in my team, like everyone else has stopped giving a shit, pretending to get work done at insane velocity on borrowed time.
It's no longer "can AI be useful" to me, it's "how do we avoid people frying their fucking brains".
I start to think most people in Software don’t care at all.
Before LLMs they were forced to at least pretend and they had been guarded by more and more style guiding, architecture, frameworks and agile ceremony.
I care alot about software and code. I write without AI, code and prose. Yet I would say it is useful for context sensitive search and autocomplete on steroids. I wonder why it should be more? It’s the intellisense I always wanted - just not worth a trillion I'd say.
And another point: if your coworkers do their job exclusively by vibing, then where’s the point of producing software? Your competitors can recreate it easily.
There’s no value in AI generated artifacts and so there’s no value in operating the AI.
i consider it intrinsic to the technology. i don't think most people can resist the temptation of feeling a lot more productive than they reasonably can be at the cost of understanding what they're doing (and the fundamental skill of caring about their own work; turbo alienation).
and those that don't fall into this trap will be dragged in sooner or later by peer pressure and bullshit KPIs.
I'm not convinced the result will not be "good enough". It looks like one might get away with shipping half-baked shit, just like before, but the speed difference incentivizes it a lot more now. Output quality is not really the issue I'm looking at. More what this has done to my own an my coworkers capability to care and mental health.
access to knowledge isn't the problem. if you use models to learn, good for you.
people around me use models to replace their critical thinking though, and i consider this a structural issue - with how incentives are laid out at my workplace but also as a cognitive trap where you think you get more done, but you're actually unlearning fundamental skills instead of supplementing your existing ones.
For example, I am learning about finance and Rust right now with LLM help. I'm not about to ace Wharton undergrad exams or deploy Rust to prod without LLM assistance, but LLMs have been such a solid enabler in getting going with these things that I have been trying to learn more about for some time.
I think the person to whom you are replying could also benefit from them if he stopped blaming the problems he is seeing on AI itself and correctly recognizes that the people he works with are the problem.
This is like blaming nicotine addiction on the user and not the nicotine for the purpose of defending nicotine use.
How people use AI is a structural problem. Just because you have an easy time using it to learn (good for you, genuinely) doesn't mean that such a product existing in a free market capitalist society isn't going to end in disaster where people will at best fall victim to the dunning-kruger effect constantly and stop valuing their peers' time and at worst roast their brains by unlearning how to acquire actual skills.
And it's not like the AI labs don't know this is happening. Their research arms regularly publish papers confirming dependence and deskilling are not uncommon in very carefully worded language. And still Anthropic is happily extending your Fable trial!
Yes sure, my coworkers are the tip of the iceberg here, but that doesn't mean AI is value-neutral. And we're not even discussing the ethics axis (because honestly, tiring; capitalism doesn't value ecology or any ethics when inconvenient and AI isn't special there)
As the reporting party of the much less severe (and much less interesting) TS-2022-003[1] I can confirm that vendor interaction is also swift when not responding would not light the company on fire. In fact there were several other vendors that were affected that have yet to mitigate it.
(It's does not. It made me so much worse. I have nothing but bad things to say about the medical "professional" who catastrophized my diagnosis to "wake me up" and then shrugged when my response was depressed resignation.)