1. 1

    There’s another part of this, which is that the closer you run to capacity, the less signal you have available to power scale-up, and the longer scale-up takes in general.

    Specifically, let’s say that whatever service it is you’re scaling, it has a maximum “measured load” of 100% (this isn’t true for everything, but for a lot of things it is true by definition). If your target load is 50%, and your measured load is 100%, then you can call for a 2x scale-up. If your time for a scale-up to complete and the measurements to settle is 2 minutes, then your scale-up rate is capped by an exponential curve with a doubling time of 2 minutes.

    But if your target load is 80%, then (unless you want to get crazy speculative) when you measure a load of 100% you can only call for a scale-up of 100%/80% = 1.25x, and now your scale-up is capped by a curve with a doubling time of somewhat over 6 minutes.

    1. 1

      I think you can maintain the 80% target load if you’re willing to adopt a more complex scaling policy and/or accept a period of less-than-optimal load. This might work?

      1. You run along quite happily at 80% utilisation
      2. Your load spikes to 100%
      3. You immediately double (or triple, whatever) your provisioned capacity (scale up)
      4. If load drops below 80% after the scale up you scale back down in small increments until load settles back to 80%
      1. 1

        Yeah, that kind of thing is what I included under “crazy speculative”. You can do it, but you’re doing it blind. You don’t have any reliable way to tell the difference between a scenario that calls for a 25% scale-up and one that calls for a doubling, or more, so you have to err on the side of scaling up too much. Which defeats the point of autoscaling to save resources in the first place.

    1. 4

      Interesting, but I have two concerns:

      1. I get that Go doesn’t actually provide the user with the tools to make this high-performance in a nice way (that’s very typical, for Go), but some of the things it does do (like the use of sync.Pool) are pretty outlandish and I worry that they will turn out to be fragile.

      2. The “key collisions are something we hope to deal with in the future” bit is a big deal. The application that I would otherwise be very interested in using this for has enough unique objects that there’s a ~1% chance that a collision of 64-bit keys exists somewhere in that set. Now, the items in the in-memory cache are transient, and the memory available on any given machine only permits caching a small fraction of the library, so the chance that any given cache has a collision at any given moment is miniscule — but all it takes is for a collision to exist and for those two keys to get co-located once, to create a user-impacting bug. I could write some code to store the keys inside the values, and fail a read if the key doesn’t match the one I was trying to retrieve — or I could set this aside and wait for them to do something similar. I think I choose the latter.

      1. 1

        When you say “without a server” you mean “without a server that you have any control over”.

        1. 1

          To be more precise, “without having to manage an additional server just for reverse proxying. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, the goal is not to make earth shattering tech claims, rather highlight that this solution allows you to avoid managing and deploying a server for reverse proxying.

          I’ll try to rephrase it nevertheless, thank you!

        1. 2

          The idea was also explored in Continuity for Perl, which is only a couple years newer than Seaside, but it wasn’t used for anything serious that I know of. It makes a really cool toy, but the fact that state is local to a process is a pretty big handicap. You can’t load-balance without session sticking; you have to keep those continuation frames around for the session lifetime; and a server going away means a bunch of users have their session state dumped. It’s almost exactly the opposite of what I try to do in “real life”.

          1. 3

            I hadn’t seen it before, but the sample chapter looks pretty good to me, and I think it’s a very cool exercise. De-mystifies Git, and gets you familiar (if you weren’t already) with lots of interesting concepts that are necessary to do it right. I would recommend using it in conjunction with Pro Git which, thankfully, is free :)

            1. 4

              Going to do a Summits on the Air (mountaintop amateur radio for imaginary points) in the highlands of New Jersey, after spending time and perhaps money at the Sussex hamfest.

              1. 1

                Relevant quote from the PostgreSQL documentation: “phantom reads are not possible in the PostgreSQL implementation of Repeatable Read”.

                Also, referring to SQL92 without even mentioning SQL99, SQL:2003, or the four more recent revisions of the standard? It’s fine if they don’t change anything, but don’t we want to know that?

                  1. 1

                    It’s highly subversive.

                  1. 1

                    Is the rendering of links as struck-through deliberate? It’s super weird.

                    1. 1

                      I don’t think it is. Links are underlined for me.

                      1. 1

                        Hmm, thanks. On closer inspection, it seems like it’s to do with the webfont it’s using.

                    1. 2

                      Part of the reason for this (and other restrictions like the inability to do print("a", interface{}("b", "c")...) is because use of slice... doesn’t unpack and repack the arguments; it drops the passed slice directly into the function’s varargs slice. And a []string can’t be dropped directly into a hole expecting a []interface{} because the items are the wrong type. It’s not a matter of quibbling semantics, it would totally crash. For that call to work, the compiler would have to make a new []interface{}, put all of the strings into interface boxes, place them in the new slice, do the call, and then deallocate the temporaries, which it could do, except

                      1. Go pretty much never does that amount of work, especially involving memory allocation, without the programmer’s explicit say-so.
                      2. If they were going to do that, they might as well cover the easier and more useful case of copying []A into []B (where A and B are different, but convertible, types) without varargs first.
                      1. 9
                        1. Make it illegal to ask for any federally-issued identifier (including SSN, ITIN, or any thing invented in the future) for non-government use.
                        2. Make it illegal to retain any federally-issued identifier together with other identifying information for non-government purposes (with a time delay to give companies time to change their primary keys).
                        3. Restrict the government’s use of SSN and ITIN to the SSA and IRS. Enrollment in state-sponsored retirement transfers has nothing to do with driving a car.
                        1. 4

                          What exactly is the takeaway from this rant? “Read warning messages”? “Keep your software updated”?

                          I get that the author’s reason for writing was to tell off the complainers, essentially saying “it’s your fault for trusting library authors; it’s not the library authors’ fault for breaking your application.” But isn’t that logic twisted? If a library maintainer introduces a bug, obviously it’s the library maintainer’s fault. The question is whether the application developer has a Plan B for this type of situation.

                          If “have a Plan B” is indeed the intended takeaway, I wish the author would say that clearly, rather than the blame-shifting approach of “you are incompetent because you trusted open source.”

                          1. 4

                            The takeaway is: Always pin your dependencies (possibly except dev env). We used shrinkwrap for this, now npm provides a lockfile, same for yarn.

                            1. 4

                              The takeaway I read into it is that if your production build process has the ability to install different versions of a million different dependencies than the ones that you previously tested on (for instance because it uses npm install and semver ranges and doesn’t lock things down), then you will at some point get screwed by that fact.

                              You should have the ability to deploy the exact same code (including deps) that you test. You should have the sense to only do this. You should have tests, and they should not suck. If you do this, you won’t be the guy who said “this caused me hours of fumbling while prod was on fire”, you will be one of the people saying “my build broke, I changed the version pin, it’s OK for now”, which is better.

                              If you want to be even more careful, then you don’t use ranges at all; you choose your dependencies, you maintain your own copies (so that no one else’s outages or pwnage spill onto you), and you don’t upgrade anything without having someone competent review the changes for any possible effect they have on you. Because code is so malleable, we as programmers make it a habit to replace the support columns in the basement with the newest high-tech design every time we repaint the cabinets in the kitchen… and then every now and then the house falls down in the process.

                              1. 1

                                Yeah, companies of any meaningful size relying on flaky redistributors like npm has always felt… odd

                                1. 1

                                  because it uses npm install and semver ranges and doesn’t lock things down

                                  FYI, npm 5 and later generates a lock file automatically, so you’d have to specifically go out of your way to do this now.

                                2. 2

                                  I don’t think that logic is twisted at all.

                                  There is an implied contract in open source that the maintainer(s) of a project promise constancy of some amount of functionality: that regressions are to be avoided and fixed and even that extensions and intentional changes are broadcasted and controlled. The implied contract holds because there’s an expectation that the maintainer(s) want the project to be successful as measured by the number of people who trust them enough to download and use the project.

                                  But that contract is just implied. For all you know, any one of your dependencies is actually has secret goals of being an art project to see how programmers respond during crisis. Or, more to the point, a con.

                                  The only way a bug or regression or breaking change is the “fault” of the maintainer(s) is if this implied contract holds.

                                  So it’s not so much whether or not you have a Plant B as much as whether you realize that you don’t have actual counterparties in the maintainer(s) who have given you a large amount of functionality you rely on. Whether you, as the responsible party for a service upon which you probably do have a contract for continued existence, support, and provision of services to your customers, are managing systemic risk appropriately.

                                  The obvious solution is to lock down dependencies and reduce “counterparty” risk on open source projects you use. More systemically, however, the solution is to be cognizant of assumptions like these and realize that they’re squarely upon the shoulders of the application maintainer.

                                  If that’s not good enough, then consider making a contract with the open source maintainers. You’ll probably need to pay them.

                                  1. 2

                                    This “implied contract” thinking is one of the strangest I’ve seen since joining BigCo. People will ask “is the project well maintained?” and don’t seem to think that the alternative is we write it from scratch – as a tech company, we write a lot from scratch and maintain all that. I’d much rather be forced to maintain a project for our use if upstream goes away then have to write from scratch and maintain!

                                    1. 2

                                      To be fair, there are lots of cases in modern development where the alternative to taking on a dependency isn’t rewriting the whole thing from scratch; it’s being moderately inconvenienced and writing slightly more code. You use a big framework because one small corner of it makes something you’re doing easier. If it didn’t exist, you would reinvent that small corner. The biggest risk is that you reinvent it with more bugs or a worse interface.

                                1. 20

                                  MVPs are too M and almost never V.

                                  Then it’s not an MVP.

                                  1. 5

                                    Indeed. And the author’s experience is clearly the opposite of my own at a medium sized company where “MVP”s are usually not at all minimal.

                                    1. 4

                                      Yeah, in my experience there’s no shortage of people who look at the original MVP spec and say “but surely we can’t show it to people without XYZ?” and by the time they’re through, you end up with triple the requirements, but no additional time budgeted :)

                                      1. 1

                                        It’s hard to get an idea of what “not minimal” is for a medium-sized company. My observation is that you can get into problems once you start making micro-adjustments based on A/B tests, or have to cater for negative impacts to other parts of your product. This happens in larger organizations, but I can see any size of organization getting caught up in their own metrics and approach. Features get cut into smaller and smaller pieces and/or don’t get fully fleshed out later once the original A/B test completes. The feature is less value to the user, but the team feel like they are doing the right thing for the product, and no one may be minding the overall product.

                                        1. 2

                                          Sure. But I’m talking about things like defining your ideal feature set, selecting half of that and calling it minimal, even if the core functionality is 1/10th of the ideal feature set. My general rule is that if your MVP has a settings or configuration screen, it’s not minimal enough. :-)

                                    1. 2

                                      Second, these limits get applied per-connection. So if you’ve got a single download going, it’ll get limited to 128kB of receive window. If you’ve got five downloads, they’ll all get 128kB, for a total of 640kB.

                                      Corollary to this: if you suffer from these slow downloads, and you could possibly do multiple downloads in parallel, do so. As long as the bottleneck is rwnd and not your actual connection, each download will have nearly no effect on the others.

                                      1. 2

                                        Why I still use vim: because it’s pretty damn good, still getting better, and so far, nothing else has enough advantages to outweigh the disadvantage of “not being the thing that I’ve used for the past couple decades”. Although being able to ssh pretty much anywhere and know that it’s there, or at the very least vi is there, that’s a pretty good one too.

                                        1. 2

                                          I’ve used Pobox for around 10 years, and have friends who have used it for longer. Their reliability is fantastic , their customer service is great, and the features are solid for a good price. They’ve been in business for 22 years, and a couple years ago they became a subsidiary of FastMail, which as you can see is also recommended by the people here. Given the history of both companies, I think that the result of the acquisition will be that both of them just get better — for instance, FastMail had the better webmail interface, but that’s now available to Pobox customers as well.

                                          1. 4

                                            Once stored, it is irreversible. And it interferes with the Right to be forgotten.

                                            Good. We can’t just make up crazy shit backed by unenforceable laws and call it a “right”.

                                            1. 6

                                              Could you explain what you mean by this comment? It’s not clear to me how right to be forgotten is both crazy and any more unenforceable than, say, a speeding violation.

                                              1. 3

                                                How is it enforceable? How would you enforce it? In which court of (which) law?

                                                Rights are hard to define. I can come up with the Right to endless free money. Amnesty Internatinal can make free education as big a right as not getting killed for your opinions. The United Nations can charter a bunch of more reasonable rights.

                                                But rights, as such, exist only to the extent people are willing and able to enforce them.

                                                1. 4

                                                  How is it enforceable? How would you enforce it? In which court of (which) law?

                                                  So, if something is unenforcable in some jurisdictions or technologies, it ceases to be a right?

                                                  Like it or not, but IP and privacy enforcement on the web are one of the few places that are rather well-trodden in front of courts and their answer is quite practical: takedowns. And if you can’t take down a part, take down the whole. Blockchains are not ephermal things that are beyond or above borders, but at all places at the same time. That makes this a messy problem, but a problem nevertheless.

                                                  I think the example the article picks is a really good one, because removing those pictures is a very reasonable request. Note that this may also backfire tremendously for the person submitting those pictures, as they may be asked to unpublish them by a court or face additional fines. “I cannot - for technical reasons - depublish what I posted” is a really bad defense facing an injunction.

                                                  Rights are hard to define. I can come up with the Right to endless free money. Amnesty Internatinal can make free education as big a right as not getting killed for your opinions. The United Nations can charter a bunch of more reasonable rights.

                                                  I don’t think thats a very useful way of having that discussion. If you go down that route, no rights exist.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    No, it doesn’t “cease to be a right”, it never can have been a right in the first place. The word means something. Rights aren’t just anything that we decide it would be nice if everyone had; they’re the essentials for the existence of society. Anything that is subject to the vagaries of time and place and technology, is not a correct statement of a right. Anything that isn’t realizable in this universe, is not a correct statement of a right. More importantly, anything that, to be granted, requires you to do violence on people, and to violate even more fundamental rights, is not a correct statement of a right. There might be some general principle in there that can be asserted as a right, but then again, maybe not. Maybe people are just talking about regulations, but framing them in terms of rights to lend unwarranted gravitas to their arguments.

                                                  2. 3

                                                    How is it enforceable? How would you enforce it? In which court of (which) law?

                                                    Starting next May it’s a law in Europe so it will be enforceable then. Although it’s not going to be a light switch, as GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) is a big technical investment so many companies need to show they are on the path with a reasonable deadline.

                                                    I don’t see why this is different than any other right. Free speech is a right in America but not in Europe. Right to be forgotten is law in Europe but not America. Does it make any of these less “rights”?

                                                    1. 3

                                                      Free speech is a right in America but not in Europe.

                                                      You are severely mistaken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

                                                      1. 1

                                                        I was referring to:

                                                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

                                                        The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,[6] the European Court of Human Rights[7]) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

                                                        From an American view of free speech, that is limiting it.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          From an American view of free speech, that is limiting it.

                                                          As opposed to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation ?

                                                          The US is not the golden standard here. Maybe it never was.

                                                          1. 1

                                                            I did not read every entry in there, so if there is a specific one to read please point to it. But of the ones I did read: none of them infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech. They limit what kind of organizations the government can do business in.

                                                            The US is not the golden standard here. Maybe it never was.

                                                            No, and it was never claimed to be. This free-speech side step took an off-hand remark I made to point out that there are differences in how different countries interpret certain rights. It’s really got nothing to do with the point of this thread.

                                                            1. 0

                                                              none of them infringe on a citizen’s right to free speech. They limit what kind of organizations the government can do business in.

                                                              Tell that to Roger Waters: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.801930

                                                      2. 2

                                                        The law doesn’t create rights. It either safeguards them, or it curtails them. One is the cause of peace and prosperity, the other is the cause of chaos.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          Rights dont exist. They’re man-made notions or rules to make life smoother for the group making them or harder for some other group. That this universe imposes a 100% death rate even knocks out the supposed right to life. That most creatures will experience misery, desparation, and/or a painful death knocks out the myth of right to happiness.

                                                          These things don’t exist. They’re figments of your imagination. In real world, there’s natural circumstances/traits with the rest beliefs and actions of those that possess them. Fortunately, some of us were born in countries that believed in protections (aka “rights”) for their citizens. They often differ quite a bit further supporting my claim.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Everyone’s heard the “spooks” shpiel before; even given that it is literally the case that rights do not physically exist, they are platonic objects that exist in people’s minds and are still not created by laws.

                                                            1. 2

                                                              They exist as much as mathematics or physics exist. Yes, all of the concepts that we use to work with them had to be “invented”/discovered, but both logically and practically, some ideas work and some don’t. Some are right, and some are wrong. And the ideas that are right, if we’ve done a proper job of figuring them out, are right throughout the universe. Clearly there’s still some figuring out to do, but that’s not the same thing as arbitrariness. Legislating a “right” that doesn’t exist or denying one that does is like legislating pi to 3. You can do it, but the results won’t be entirely happy.

                                                          2. 1

                                                            Starting next May it’s a law in Europe so it will be enforceable then.

                                                            How does the EU plan to enforce it when they don’t have the capability to remove content from immutable public data structures, like blockchains? This is what the GP was presumably asking.

                                                            1. 1

                                                              In general: someone complains about someone specific (eg an exchange) hosting something, and the EU sues the exchange for continuing to host that content.

                                                              Will be an interesting test case.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Ok, sure, and now you’ve sued some random third party who also doesn’t have the capability to take down the content. The law is still not being enforced.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  The law is still not being enforced.

                                                                  I’m not sure I grasp the point you are making. With any law, one can construct a situation where enforcing, or even discovering the law has been violated, is difficult to impossible. That doesn’t mean the law has no utility. In my experience, in most cases companies want to abide by the law and laws like GDPR give users the ability to specify how they want their data used. The law codifies a way people want to interact with companies to control this. It’s not going to cover The Fappening. And it doesn’t even necessarily mean data will or can be taken down. But it does mean, by and large, companies are incentivized to not do the wrong thing and this will be enough for a vast majority of situations. And if it’s not, the law will eventually change.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    They can’t get it off the chain, but they do have the ability to stop serving that content to others, which is all the law in question let’s you ask for.

                                                                2. 1

                                                                  Oh, that’s easy.

                                                                  You ban all devices capable of running non-EU-approved computer programs. You know we’re on that road anyway.

                                                            2. 3

                                                              “The right to be forgotten” can be equivalently stated (using the same analogy) as “the right to destroy someone else’s memories by force”.

                                                              You have the right to control your own data, whether it’s a belief stored in your head or some bits stored on your computer.

                                                              As for how it’s unenforceable; look at the OP. You can embed data in immutable, censorship-resistant systems. “The right to be forgotten” goes against entropy and the human spirit. As Mr. Brand said, Information wants to be free.

                                                              1. 4

                                                                You have the right to control your own data, whether it’s a belief stored in your head or some bits stored on your computer.

                                                                Why is this necessarily true? For human memories, sure, but for computer, how is that a right? Governments can and do destroy copies of data. In particular, GDPR is laws around how companies need to act. These companies want to abide by the law.

                                                                As for how it’s unenforceable; look at the OP. You can embed data in immutable, censorship-resistant systems. “The right to be forgotten” goes against entropy and the human spirit. As Mr. Brand said, Information wants to be free.

                                                                I don’t really understand about how it’s going against the law of entropy or human spirit. For starters, doesn’t entropy mean information is being reduced over time? Secondly, GDPR is about what restrictions companies need on their data. If the data gets leaked, that is one thing, but GDPR isn’t about security in that sense it’s about “if you have data, these are the restrictions on what you can do with it”. It’s all pretty reasonable and it’s an extension of what companies like Google and Facebook have already been trying to do in some ways.

                                                                To put it another way, if a company included customer data on an immutable censorship-resistant system where the customer did not explicitly give them agreement to do that, that company can face penalty. So just because you can construct a system that has these properties doesn’t mean nobody will be punished for it.

                                                                But perhaps you are taking “right to be forgotten” too literally? This is just colloquial talk for the laws and thought that lead to GDPR, nobody literally means trying to wipe the minds of other people if someone chooses to be forgotten.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Governments also detain people without trial and censor politically inconvenient writing. That doesn’t imply that habeas corpus and freedom of the press aren’t rights.

                                                                  What’s the moral difference between bits encoded in meat and bits encoded in silicon? How about when the silicon is physically inside your head?

                                                                  Entropy does not mean information is being reduced over time. More disordered states contain more information. Information is increasing, while regular structure (negentropy) is decreasing. When two systems interact, information spreads from one system to the other. That’s how entropy grows.

                                                                  “Right to be forgotten” legislation allows people to force companies to delete data they already have. It’s not an a priori restriction on what data can be acquired. Plenty of people have forced Google to remove search results about their name. Spinning it as a uniform restriction on data collection is misleading and inaccurate.

                                                                  Do you think I’m an idiot? Why would I interpret “right to be forgotten” as a legal injunction against someone’s brain? It’s an analogy; so much of our person today lives outside of our heads, in our smartphones and online storage. The amount of personal information outside of our heads is only going to get bigger. If you can use the law to reach into someone else’s data and break it (which is what current European legislation does, except that it hasn’t been used against an individual yet to my knowledge), this is at some level tantamount to lobotomizing the person.

                                                                  1. 0

                                                                    Do you think I’m an idiot?

                                                                    My comment had no judgement in it. I was attempting to cover as many possible interpretations as possible, mostly to avoid extra round trips. I’m not sure the tone you had in your head when you wrote this but I feel I’ve been genuine, kind, and thoughtful in this back and forth and to accuse me of claiming you’re an idiot when my comment states nothing of the sort is really unfortunate. Please try to be conscious that maintaining a civil comment thread is not easy and give those you reply to (or at least me) some slack and assume the best in what they said. If your tone was meant to be joking, that did not make it through for me.

                                                                    What’s the moral difference between bits encoded in meat and bits encoded in silicon? How about when the silicon is physically inside your head?

                                                                    AFAIK, we don’t really have this situation to worry about yet. But if/when it does happen, whatever company puts it in your head and allows you to store customer data in there will have to do it in a way that corresponds to the law assuming they want to be a law abiding company. Most likely this means that whatever silicon touches the data stores it encrypted and has to go through some ACL system to decrypt it. But there are lots of solutions out there. Situations where a person could be harmed in some way to enforce that will likely be dealt with on a case-by-case basis because reality is messy and laws are a guideline and people get to interpret them at the end of the day.

                                                                    If you can use the law to reach into someone else’s data and break it (which is what current European legislation does, except that it hasn’t been used against an individual yet to my knowledge), this is at some level tantamount to lobotomizing the person.

                                                                    I don’t actually understand the situation you have in mind when you wrote this. But the way the law works is if you are going to store personal information you have to store it in a way that corresponds to the requirements of it. It doesn’t let someone arbitrary break someones data (I’m not really sure what that means). It does give clear requirements to those storing the data. I’m really struggling to understand what point you’re trying to make. It’s not like everyone in the world is running every system on a blockchain.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      I don’t know if you intended it, but this:

                                                                      But perhaps you are taking “right to be forgotten” too literally? This is just colloquial talk for the laws and thought that lead to GDPR, nobody literally means trying to wipe the minds of other people if someone chooses to be forgotten.

                                                                      is incredibly condescending. If you want to give some slack to the people you’re replying to, at least assume they aren’t mentally deficient and can understand an obvious analogy.

                                                                      But if/when it does happen, whatever company puts it in your head and allows you to store customer data in there

                                                                      What do you mean by this? I would put it in my head, not a company. If you mean the person I hire to put it in my head, why should they exercise any control over the contents of my body and mind?

                                                                      No one “allows” me to store data about people in my head; I just do it, and damn anyone who tells me I can’t.

                                                                      So do you, or do you not, think it’s acceptable for governments to dictate the contents of people’s heads, whether meat or silicon?

                                                                      But the way the law works is if you are going to store personal information you have to store it in a way that corresponds to the requirements of it. It doesn’t let someone arbitrary break someones data

                                                                      Again, this is just straight up wrong. I’m trying to be charitable, but it’s hard.

                                                                      http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527 http://searchengineland.com/google-right-to-be-forgotten-form-192837 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/20/google-ordered-to-remove-links-to-stories-about-right-to-be-forgotten-removals http://time.com/103381/google-right-forgotten-takedown-requests/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-criminals-using-right-be-forgotten-law/

                                                              2. 1

                                                                Could you explain what you mean by this comment? It’s not clear to me how right to be forgotten is both crazy and any more unenforceable than, say, a speeding violation.

                                                                It all boils down to changing the past. If you became the butt of jokes for an entire country after your public porn got some attention, this law gives you the false hope that by censoring undesirable digital content you’ll also cancel people’s memory of it.

                                                                Sometimes, the rude awakening that you can’t edit the past is enough to push you to suicide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiziana_Cantone

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Perhaps you’re taking the word “right” more seriously than is meant. It was the name used prior to the GDPR legislation and it’s really about putting restrictions on what companies can do with your data. It’s not about trying to clean out the internet in the case of your data being leaked.

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    It’s not about trying to clean out the internet in the case of your data being leaked.

                                                                    It kind of is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

                                                            1. 7

                                                              At first it seemed like a pretty close thing to me (the original argument, not the defamation action, which is bullshit regardless IMO) — I can see where grsecurity’s argument is coming from. They’re saying “we give you the GPL’d code, we do it in compliance with the GPL, and you have all the rights to give you to the code you received, so everything is hunky-dory. But we aren’t obligated (except by our agreement) to keep giving you new versions, and we’ll terminate that agreement if we find out you redistributed”. I can see how they think that holds up.

                                                              But that section 6: “you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein”. Again, I can imagine the narrow interpretation where they think they’re staying within the letter of that… but I expect they’re entirely wrong. They’re holding customers to a pre-existing agreement that specifically covers what they can do with GPL code and imposes a penalty for redistribution, so in all likelihood (in my highly unprofessional opinion) that means that the GPL doesn’t grant them any right to convey the code to any customers covered by that kind of agreement. And as the GPL says, if it doesn’t, nothing else does. So I think I’m convinced.

                                                              1. 7

                                                                And we wonder why women leave the computing industry at a faster rate than men….

                                                                1. 6

                                                                  Why? Because a male programmer choose to demonstrate this concept by showing paintings of boobs instead of penises? He could have, of course, demonstrated this with something else, but this clearly gets the point across of how bad it can get without being completely obscene, or actually committing data that would confirm the problem to begin with.

                                                                  1. 6

                                                                    I’ve noticed that a lot of men have a problem with seeing other men’s penises. There’s a certain threat factor involved with an exposed penis. Consider how many men act grossed out at the thought of other men being nude for an extended amount of time in the locker rooms. Why are they so nude? They must be pedophiles getting off from exposing themselves. Even worse if they’re older men, their nudity is doubly threatening.

                                                                    Anyway, my point is, yes, choosing breasts was a very gendered, male choice.

                                                                    1. 7

                                                                      The author explains it quite plainly:

                                                                      Immutability is a double-edged sword. Transaction data stays forever, which is good. But a wicked mind could leverage immutability to store harmful images or texts about a third party FOREVER, with the goal of inflicting social damage. Once stored, it is irreversible. And it interferes with the Right to be forgotten. Think about a spiteful vengeance in the context of a lovers’ spat or a relationship break-up. That’s why I’ve used artistic boobs, as a fun analogy

                                                                      1. 4

                                                                        Does everything have to be political? Can you not just see what he’s doing and look at the intent instead of trying to insert some unrelated narrative?

                                                                        1. 5

                                                                          That ship sailed a long time ago, sibling.

                                                                          1. 6

                                                                            Does everything have to be political?

                                                                            He made it political in the first place by choosing breasts. If you don’t want people to discuss human anatomy, pick something else as an example, something that doesn’t bring the same kind of attention. We are frail, social creatures and that means politics.

                                                                            1. 5

                                                                              I don’t see how breasts are remotely political.

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                Obviously, doctor, you’ve never had to deal with hearing the public’s opinions about your breasts.

                                                                              2. 4

                                                                                pick something else as an example,

                                                                                The danger of picking something else is that the entire danger will be lost on the casual reader. “Oh noes!!!! I can put flowers in the block chain and they are forever!!!! AAAAAHHHH WHAT WILL I DO???” v. my immediate reaction of “I sure hope my daughters, in 8 years, don’t start snapchatting breast picks to their so called friends who make it impossible to delete, forever!”

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  If you don’t want people to discuss human anatomy, pick something else as an example, something that doesn’t bring the same kind of attention.

                                                                                  something that doesn’t bring the same kind of attention.

                                                                                  Maybe that’s the meta reason? To get everyone wound up and subconciously realize what this post is really about?

                                                                          2. 7

                                                                            I popped into the comments to say the same thing. I suppose I can see why he thought using those pictures was apt, but I think the point could’ve been made just as strongly using any image.

                                                                            1. 3

                                                                              Your remark, true or not, is not germane to this topic and will likely only lead to flaming.

                                                                              If you can’t say anything about the technology, don’t say anything at all.

                                                                              1. 9

                                                                                If you can’t say anything about the technology, don’t say anything at all.

                                                                                It seems to me that you’re encouraging the self-censoring of one viewpoint under the guise of maintaining neutraity. When the dispute is between “this is in poor taste” and “there is nothing wrong with this”, silence on the subject is an implicit endorsement of the latter.

                                                                                1. 5

                                                                                  My point is that that dispute is uninteresting and off-topic compared to the technology.

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    When the dispute is between “this is in poor taste” and “there is nothing wrong with this”, silence on the subject is an implicit endorsement of the latter.

                                                                                    You are perfectly free to find something in bad taste. And you’re free to express that opinion. But trying to constitute an argument out of it, for the purpose of holding people to a standard you haven’t met yourself, is illegitimate. Extremely fashionable, but still not valid.

                                                                              1. 4

                                                                                Gotta love it, and I’m especially impressed by the hybrid approach. Two techniques (async shader compilation and the ubershader) that were both not ready for prime time, and the solution ends up being to take on both of them, and let each one fill in the gaps left by the other. Looks like the diffstat on the merge was +5441 -890, which is nothing to sneeze at. It makes me want to resume my re-play of Metroid Prime 1 (which wasn’t made unplayable by the stuttering, but it was definitely noticeable), only problem is that damn Omega Pirate.