Usually quantum physics serves as a crank magnet for all kinds of generally leftist kookery, but Jan seems to want to reject it outright for similar reasons that you talk about above with irrational numbers.

I know this isn’t your point, but the non-political way to express a similar rejection of quantum theory was literally just Einstein saying “god does not play dice”, which he famously retracted.

I mean okay sure but Trump was doing that fine by himself and this guy’s entire job is to cheerlead for whatever deranged nonsense Trump does after finding out about it in the news. So he can be safely ignored.

You really don’t see the risk of having no data centers you actually control as an organization?

This really depends on what you think you’re getting from having your own DC. Is it reliability? Flexibility? Control? What are your objectives?

There’s some argument to be made to have some locally hosted stuff for some flexibility and control. And in some niche cases the pricing of public offerings doesn’t make sense.

But as I said, if you’re building your own data center for increased reliability then 1) you’re necessarily assuming the premise that you’re going to be better at managing DCs than Google, Microsoft and AWS which I think in reality would be hard to prove let alone do, and 2) is hard to justify considering you can distribute workloads across multiple data centers already (as proven by the Netflix example) so that your reliability isn’t limited by any one vendor.

You’re kind of proving (part of) my point?

How? Their reliability would exist without that. There’s nothing inherent to their own data center that makes their setup that much better. Having a distributed system across multiple cloud service providers means your actual chance of downtime (here I mean inverse of uptime) is their individual chances of uptime multiplied by each other. In other words, they all have to go down for your service to fail. The catch is you have to use only commodity IaaS and PaaS, nothing proprietary to one CSP.

For smaller companies especially, in terms of pure reliability, there’s no reason to think that they would be better at running a high availability data center than Microsoft or AWS or Google.

Parallel distributed architectures give you the advantages of using public cloud (not having to physically manage your own data center) without the disadvantages (dependence on any one cloud vendor), while also potentially increasing your reliability beyond the reliability of any one of your cloud vendors . That is why Netflix is so rock solid.

Stop giving this clown free press. He is not a consequential person. Trump doesn’t know his name, he has no part in diplomatic policy , and is finding out about Trump’s moves on Twitter like everyone else. He can be ignored.

Your entire argument can be used to show that no cities (except I guess mining towns?) have inherent importance and you have made no attempt to address this obvious implication of what you’re saying. You still won’t define what the hell you mean inherent importance anyways, and I can only assume that’s because you can’t without it sounding ridiculous.

If we want a truly robust system, yeah, we kinda do. This sort of event is only one of the issues with allowing a single entity to control pretty much everything.

What I’m advocating for is the opposite of “allowing one entity to control everything”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering#Chaos_Monkey

Read about it dude. Netflix has a large presence in all major cloud providers (and they have their own data centers), but has a service whose uptime is NOT dependent on any one of those hosting environments. The proof is the pudding - Netflix service did not go down in the recent AWS outage, nor in the last one.

All of that can be achieved WITHOUT completely abandoning public cloud services and having to completely host all of the hardware for their services.

Has anybody ever told you you’re head is up your own ass? This is all great stuff for a poetic writing class but there isn’t even a hint of a coherent argument in this.

Financial centers are not holy ground. They are habits that formed because of historical momentum, not because the soil under Wall Street produces capital.

Cool, and irrelevant.

London used to be the unquestioned financial center of the world. Before that, Amsterdam. Before that, Venice. None of those cities lost intelligence or charm. The center moved because technology and incentives changed.

True, and also irrelevant.

Claiming New York is inherently responsible

Explain what this means in this context. Clearly. Bonus points for considering the very obvious first-order implications of what you’re saying.

You’re still using the same weak analogy. This dubious logic can be used to deny the importance of literally any location on earth.

In the same way, the power of markets and industries does not depend on New York. The companies, the capital, the investors, and the trades are the real substance. They could operate successfully in another city

So why don’t they? Answer the question. I’m sure many other places would want to be the financial capital or the world. Why aren’t they?

prejudice is still bad! misandry/reverse racism doesn’t exist (full stop) but a black person could still be prejudice against white people, or a women could be prejudice again men. that doesn’t excuse it, but words and connotation matter.

Yes, words and connotations matter which is why the whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they’re the only “correct” definition is so pointless . It is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she’s engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that’s all.

There were already terms for this - the word “systemic” was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn’t exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them - like seriously if you can’t even win them over then maybe your strategy sucks?).

It’s all the more tragic because this whole time feminist discourse could have been focusing on the actual problem of systemic misogyny and systemic racism instead of fighting linguistic battles that have all been conclusively lost.

lol it’s not even an argument it is an accepted fact in academia. your misunderstanding of higher level concepts is not a valid argument against it

This whole exercise of injecting academic terms into common discourse and pretending like they’re the only “correct” definition is at least 15 years old now and has achieved nothing. Where is your victory? If a woman hates all men just for being men she’s engaging in misandry. No matter how many times you explain that a system of oppression against men is required in the definition, all you will be doing is preaching to your ever shrinking choir. That definition is only useful outside academia because certain people want to excuse bigotry, and that’s all.

There were already terms for this - the word “systemic” was already in use. Systemic racism vs racism for example. But this insistence that all of society must accept that racism is actually defined as systemic racism and racism without systemic elements simply doesn’t exist is so absurd and silly that it is has no ability to gain any mass appeal required for systemic change which is why its confined to terminally online leftists (and not even all of them).

We don’t have to. It is entirely possible to engineer applications and services in a way that they’re not dependent on any one cloud service, while also using cloud services for IaaS. Netflix famously does this, and sure enough Netflix experience no service interruptions during this latest outage despite having a large AWS presence.

Years ago I saw a page on that site about irrational numbers that was pure comedy. Basically they begrudgingly admit that irrational numbers might actually exist (whatever that means for numbers), but heavily implied that it’s a liberal plot of some kind stemming from moral relativism or whatever. Just insane ramblings.

The distinction you’re making between the “real” city and the things that happen to be hosted there isn’t real. This same line of reasoning can be used to declare literally any place irrelevant in any context. For example Beijing is irrelevant to the world, it’s only influential because that’s where the Chinese capital happens to be hosted. It’s silly. New York’s global influence comes from the sum of all of the things that just happen to be hosted there, just like anywhere else important.

Lol Marco Rubio still thinks he’s going to ass-kiss his way into the big chair.

All that means is that they’re going to do everything they can to rig the midterms.

I mean the hilarious thing about the movie is that the guy in the left was also supposed to be super elite or whatever and be the final boss for Arnold. Arnold circa 1982 vs a guy who looks like he drinks a 6 pack of beer every day. The most lopsided boss fight in a movie.

She won’t get the nomination. At most just maybe make some noise during the convention. Pretty sure the DNC has already decided to force Newsome though.

You guys don’t want change you want you return to the status quo.

You have to win to change things bruh. If you can’t focus on that even a little and focus only on what you want in a perfect world , then it doesn’t matter you want because you’ll never win.

All else being equal a white man less than 65 who believe 95percent the same things as AOC will get at least 5 percent more votes just like that, which is the difference between winning and losing.

It’s almost certainly not that. Supplier diversity has been identified as a strategic priority for NASA since forever. The failures to achieve this are more prominent that than the successes.