Yeah, it’s definitely faster, but I’m not sure it’s going to make too much of a difference for a Minecraft server.
With setting it up being a bit annoying by hand, I’d still rank the router option higher even if it’s a worse VPN. Otherwise you risk ending up in that yak shaving situation where you’re fighting with routing tables and DNS when you wanted a Minecraft server.
Oh for sure. What I meant was “check router for a built in VPN and use it if it has one, otherwise use wireguard because it’s the easiest”.
The specific VPN doesn’t really matter so much. The built-in one would be the easiest, so checking for a solution that took a few clicks is worth it. :)
I would use something like wireguard, or another VPN service you can host yourself if your router supports it natively.
From the looks of it Minecraft servers seem to have dogshit authentication, so using some form of private network setup is going to be your best move.
Because the headline literally says “world’s first all electric train”, which it very much is not.
Yup. :/
I looked it up and it’s not unusual for sentencing in New York to take several months, but I would have been much happier if the political realities had pushed things to move faster.
Having read the prosecutions response to the request for delay that basically said “everything the defense said justifying a delay was wrong, here’s why a delay would actually be a good idea”, it feels hard to blame the judge too much for granting the delay.
Even though none of the reasons seem to be based on sound legal principles and are at best based on practical considerations.
I’m unaware of anything the judge has done that strikes me as particularly partisan.
“Not offending either party” is definitely not a partisan act. It’s almost the definition of nonpartisan.
I can’t fault him overmuch for granting the schedule change, since reading the letter from the prosecution regarding it they do seem to be effectively agreeing that it should be moved. If the defense requests a scheduling change, and the prosecution doesn’t object and makes some points about why it might be a good idea so as to “assist the court”, it’s pretty hard for a judge to deny the request.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25050972/2024-08-16-peoples-response-filed.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25100931/people-v-djt-letter-adjournment-dec-9-6-24.pdf
Do you have a citation for him saying that he didn’t want to send him to jail? I feel like I would have heard something like that and the searches don’t turn up anything particularly relevant.
A prison sentence looks way more like political suppression than just “guilty but still speaking publicly”.
Still don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I can see why a judge who has otherwise seemed same and nonpartisan would be inclined to make that choice.
It is actually normal for sentencing to take a while after conviction.
My bet would be that it’s to avoid influencing the election rather than riots.
Whichever sentence he gives, it has the potential to make him more likely to win, thereby undermining the sentence.
Personally, I’d like to see justice happen in a way that can be blind to that outside context, but we don’t live in that world.
I don’t like it, but I get it.
True, but doctors will still recommend it because of you tell people they can’t have any seasoning they might just ignore you.
If you tell them they can have the other stuff, they’ll find it much easier to comply and it’s still much better.
As written the headline is pretty bad, but it seems their argument is that they should be able to train from publicly available copywritten information, like blog posts and social media, and not from private copywritten information like movies or books.
You can certainly argue that “downloading public copywritten information for the purposes of model training” should be treated differently from “downloading public copywritten information for the intended use of the copyright holder”, but it feels disingenuous to put this comment itself, to which someone has a copyright, into the same category as something not shared publicly like a paid article or a book.
Personally, I think it’s a lot like search engines. If you make something public someone can analyze it, link to it, or derivative actions, but they can’t copy it and share the copy with others.
Only for the sake of specific-ness: Crowdstrike forced the update, not the OS. :) and yeah, that’s generally unheard of. Like so unheard of that it’s a professional recommendation reversing occurrence based purely on how they could release a product that bypassed user expectations so aggressively and without any documentation that it was happening.
I work in the security sector with computers, and before all this I would have said “yeah, crowdstrike is a widely deployed product and if it fits your requirements it’s reasonable to use”. Now I would strongly recommend against it, not because of this incident, but because of the engineering, product and safety culture that thought it was okay to design a product this way without user controls or even documentation around any part of it. Their after incident report is horrifying in testing it communicates they weren’t doing.
I wouldn’t advise someone to use windows for a server, but that’s a preference thing, not a “hazard” thing. If they had a working windows setup I wouldn’t even comment on it.
What sounds like happened to Delta is that they were set-up roughly like other companies. Maybe a little loose on different setups at different airports. That’s a forgivable level of slop. Where they differed was in having a piece of software that couldn’t handle being entirely shut off, and then immediately loaded to 100% with no ease in.
Scheduling is a type of computer problem that’s very susceptible to getting increasingly difficult the bigger the number of things being worked with. Like exponentially more difficult, but it’s actually worse than exponential.
I know nothing about they’re system, but I can guess that it worked fine when it was running because it needed to make a small number of scheduling decisions at a time, and could look at the existing state of things as a decided “fact”. Start the system fresh, and suddenly it needs to compare the hundreds of airports, more hundred of planes and crews, and thousands of possible routes to each other and is looking at literally billions of possible schedules which it needs to sort through to pick the best ones.
Other airlines appear to have scheduling systems that were either developed using more modern techniques that can find “good enough” very efficiently, or the application was written to fail less easily or had better hardware so it could work faster.
For whatever reason, delta was the only one that had the key bit of software fail to come back up.
Delta has higher costs than the other airlines because there are regulations protecting travelers and ensuring they get appropriate refunds and accomodations if their flights are cancelled. Other airlines were able to shift people around and get going again before they had to pay out too much in ticket refunds, food, or hotels.
Delta is arguing that crowdstrike is responsible for the total cost of the incident, which would include all the refunds and hotels, since they caused it.
Crowdstrike recently responded that they think their liability is no greater than $10mil. They seem to be taking the position that they’re only responsible for the immediate effects, so things like diverting aircraft, needing to manually poke systems and all that.
“Yeah I t-boned you when I ran a red light, so I owe you for the damage to your car, but your car was a dangerous piece of crap so I’m not responsible for your broken legs, hospital bills or lost wages”.
I think the judge will find that running the red light means they are responsible for the extended consequences of their actions, even if they’re vastly in excess of what anyone would have predicted up front, but that the car was pretty dangerous so it was really only a matter of time so it’s not all on them.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from reading about court cases, it’s that a civil suit like this will get really complicated with how they assess damages and responsibilities.
And yeah, there’s no perfect answer for computer system stability. You can never get perfect stability, and each 9 you add to your 99.9% uptime costs more than the last one. Eventually you have teams of people whose full time job is keeping the system up for an additional second per year. And even with that, sometimes Google still goes down because it’s all a numbers game.
I didn’t mean to ramble so long, but I have opinions and I get type-y before bed. :)
So that’s what third party cookies are. What this does is make it so that when you go to example.com and you get a Google cookie, that cookie is only associated with example.com, and your random.org Google cookie will be specific to that site.
A site will be able to use Google to track how you use their site, which is a fine and valid thing, but they or Google don’t get to see how you use a different site. (Google doesn’t actually share specifics, but they can see stuff like “behavior on one site led to sale on the other”)
You are correct that Delta was an outlier, but it wasn’t with regards to the scale of the outage, it was that their scheduling software was down far longer and they handled a lot of the customer side of things significantly less well.
Generally, your protection against operating system issues is the aforementioned restriction on changes and how they go out.
If something is stable, you can expect it to remain stable unless something changes or random chance breaks something.
The operational cost of running multiple operating systems in production like you describe would be high. Typically software is only written to work on one platform, and while it can be modified to work on others, it’s usually a cost with no benefit outside of a consumer environment.
Different operating systems have different performance characteristics you need to factor in for load scaling, different security models, and different maintenance requirements.
Often, but not always, server administrators will focus on one OS, so adding more to the mix can mean people are rusty with whichever is your backup, which can be worse than just focusing on fixing the issue with the primary.
OS bugs are rare, and they usually manifest early or randomly. It’s why production deployments tend to use the OS as long as it’s supported: change means learning the new issues and you’ve probably already encountered all the bullshit with what you’re currently using. That’s why the Linux distros tend to have long term support versions, and windows server edition tends to just get support for a long time with terrible documentation.
I’m a Linux guy, so defending windows feels weird, and I want to include that I don’t think anyone should use it, particularly for a server, but the professional in me acknowledges that it’s a perfectly functional hammer.
As we’ve learned more, I’ve become more disparaging of deltas choice to not keep the scheduling system modernized in a way that could recover faster, and not investing enough in making systems homogeneous across different airports. I still think that these issues are largely independent of their actual disaster recovery or resiliency plans.
Inevitably, the lawsuits will determine that the blame for the damage is split between the two of them. My bet is 70/30 crowdstrike/delta, since they can easily demonstrate that the issue was fundamentally caused by crowdstrike and negatively impacted other airlines and businesses in general. Some was clearly deltas fault for just failing to keep a system modernized to handle a massive shift like this, and would have been similarly disrupted by any outage with flight cancellations.
The current geological era will have measurable levels of radioactive isotopes different from expectations. Just like we can tell when plants started making oxygen from the Fossil record and rock chemistry, we’ll be able to tell when humans started having some physics fun time in the atmosphere.
Other fun fact is that we’ve added a decent set of new markers for future archeologists to date things with.
I think we’ve caused some of the carbon dating techniques to need a little * in the future, since we’ve shifted the baseline level around quite a bit.
We also added some new radioactive isotopes to the mix, like strontium, which show up in your teeth. Not new-new, but measurably increased levels.
We can actually use the levels in your teeth to predict your age within a year or two.
The discovery of this is part of what motivated the partial nuclear test ban that had both the US and Soviet Union stop testing in the atmosphere.
You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.
Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.
Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.
Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.
People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.
Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.
I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.
Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.
If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.
Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.
If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.
Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.
Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team, and then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.
That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.
Most voters don’t have a business and never will.
The value of a net new business is that it creates more jobs and economic activity.
Most people benefit from more jobs to either work at or drive up labor demand.
Per that school of economic thought, incentivizing a new business adds more activity to the market and more opportunity for people to find ways to innovate, provide value and become profitable.
Giving money to an existing struggling business is subsidizing a businesses that’s already demonstrated that it’s not working.
However, we’re both putting too much into it. The goal is to say $50k for small business, because people like a business friendly atmosphere.
Trump gets credit for giving tax cuts to businesses for stock buyback, which only helps investors. The goal is to court people who want pro business policies without literal handouts to corporations.