> that lasted from 1873 to 1877, continuing until 1879 in the French Third Republic and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Reading the entire sentence makes it clearer.

I read it as 1873 to 1877 for North America and most of Europe, but contining until 1879 in France and the UK.

You could always eat two. But most people are inclined to use one as a "serving".

The same thing has been said about pints of ice cream. They are (or were?) labeled as being 2.5 servings - reasonable - but lots of people just ate them whole and then complained that they had too many calories.

https://mapofmetal.com/ was always one of my favorite (and I don't even listen to metal).

Is it? Or has ChatGPT read the answer before.

As an end user, does it even matter?

You just want the answer.

It matters if you're going to call it an "interesting test".

Use a stack? LIFO.

As long as you have capacity to keep it mostly empty, it's fine. When requests backup, at least some people will still get quick responses, instead of making everyone suffer.

For a queue, a backup means that every request (from "now" on, until the end of time) is delayed.

For a stack, a backup means that some requests are informally forgotten, and although they still appear to be open, they will not complete until the end of time.

That's worse. It's a better match to the behavior you want, except for the part where the old requests still appear to be open. You need to actually close them.

You might also want to consider how requesting behavior will change when requests are stacked instead of queued. As soon as people have learned that you keep requests in a stack, the correct way to make a request is to make it, wait for a very small amount of time, and then, if your request hasn't already succeeded, repeat it.

Guess what will happen then?

> You might also want to consider how requesting behavior will change when requests are stacked instead of queued. As soon as people have learned that you keep requests in a stack, the correct way to make a request is to make it, wait for a very small amount of time, and then, if your request hasn't already succeeded, repeat it.

It would be very hard to learn this so long as the queue is a very small fraction of the total throughput. If the queue depth is 100, and you receive 10,000qps, but process 9,900 qps, the queue will get full, and roughly 97 calls will go unanswered. Ideally you should have another mechanism to time these out, which most systems do. Whatever queue type you pick, you are going to reject 1% of the inbound, but with a FIFO queue, you will also delay 100% of the responses. Do that at several layers, and you can even end up with the client timing out even though their request wasn't even rejected at any stage.

> Guess what will happen then?

All metrics up! Will fit nicely in my promo packet.

> in ways very stupid simple people can understand

The problem is rarely the ability to understand. It is the ability (or desire) to listen that many lack.

These people have no trouble listening. They're deeply into people like Rogan, Trump, their pastor, RFK etc. and eat up their every word.

They will listen to anyone who tells them what they like to hear. They will not listen to anyone who tells them what they don't like to hear. They shop around for truths they prefer like they're items at Costco.

Somewhere along the line they had to develop preferences which indicates some level of listening.

People’s preferences tend very strongly toward whatever requires the least action on their part. If the problem is with someone else, then you never have to be part of the solution

It’s political preferences, not laziness. People aren’t listening to Rogan or whoever and ignoring the CDC because of laziness. They are doing that because they follow what their social and/or political community thinks and does.

Feels like this whole thread is trying to pin this on individual preferences or whatever. But it’s a social effect, and individual personalities or intelligence have very little to do with it. If you lived in these communities, unless you are neurodivergent, you would be doing the same thing.

>If you lived in these communities, unless you are neurodivergent, you would be doing the same thing.

As someone who grew up in one of these communities, this has not been my experience. Many, many people move away, and for varied reasons. What you're left with are people who stay in economically declining areas and want to blame everyone else for it. It's selection bias, and it is absolutely based on personal choice.

Seconded. My Silhouette is great. I even emailed them and received a copy of the GPGL docs one time. It wasn't full on support, but they were willing to give me a start.

The first thing I programmed was having it draw a hilbert curve and it worked great!

Ooh, did you do a blog article about it perhaps? I think I read it, if so.

It's 14 years old at this point, but here you go: https://www.ohthehugemanatee.net/2011/07/gpgl-reference-cour...

Yep that’s the one. Thank you for it. :-)

Why is that stupid? They did get lucky. They are acknowledging that, had they used that, they would have had problems. And now they will work to be more prepared.

Acknowledging that one still has risks and that luck plays a factor is important.

Who's to say they didn't?

Writing a follow up post is certainly valuable for raising awareness to anyone who had already read the original erroneous article.