It has been done. Chat apps once did work together and you had multi client apps that would connect to everything. Then they slowly died off and became discontinued because people don't actually care that much about having multiple chat apps. Thanks to modern push notification services, you can receive messages from all IM services without having to have those apps actually running.
> Divide your life into 10-minute units and sacrifice as few of them as possible in meaningless activity.
Sounds like hell. I am not a robot. And how am I going to do it. Take an hour before work to plan 48 10 Minute sessions for the day. What if something important comes up?
Or take a 1 minute block every 10 minutes to figure out what to do for the next session?
God forbid I have to take a call, take a p*ss, or my noodle pot boils over while I wfh.
I agree that scheduling your entire life in 10-minute units with no space left for just living sounds somewhat hellish, but I like the core concept of being conscious about what I'm doing with my time. I would look at it more as not just defaulting into meaningless activity, but making a conscious decision that it's what you want to be doing for a while.
Whoops, I just continued reading into an emotional strawman argument derogating a transnational CEO's time management strategy.
Not going to do that for the next eight minutes, I'm too busy dividing the rest of my life into annotated 100ms segments so I can get some real work done.
I don't think there's any reason to assume that a "transnational CEO", whatever that means, is any worse or better at time management than other people.
And if they are, there's no reason to assume that their "strategy" will work for others. A lot of CEOs are workaholics. What works for them won't help a healthy human.
It means that becoming the CEO of a transnational corporation is a pretty strong filter for effectiveness, and the comment I replied to is probably not in the spirit of their advice.
With smart planning, you could clean up the noodle bowl and take a piss in the same 10 minute chunk. And with enough practice you could have a few minutes to spare for something important to come up.
ah yes. Because there is a direct and clear road ahead from requirement to implementation. Requirements don't change and if they do it doesn't have any impact on existing parts of the software. /s
My favorite is when stakeholders don't talk to devs to determine whether something is actually possible given the data we collect, but instead go off the recommendation of a technical manager who has never actually worked on the system or its data.
An assertive dev will look at the requirements, try to figure out how that fits, and then reply back to stakeholders if it's unfeasible. Everyone else will sit there for a week bashing their brains out against a keyboard and have continually increased anxiety because they've been assigned an impossible task. The time for a dev to be involved in the process is during requirements gathering as a partner to the process, not after a contract for work has been signed by the client.
The thing that was most disturbing was just how quickly the water rose. The Ahr, typically 10-15 ft wide and maybe about a feet deep, just enough to cool a beer crate during hot summer, went up to something like 23ft.
I was joking with my mum on the phone late afternoon when they told me our camper got towed uphill as a precautionary measure.
Not 2h later they had to be evacuated and the whole campsite was gone, as in does not exist anymore.
Wasn't it similar in 2015 or 2016, can't remember anymore, when Müsch was under water and Herschbroich seen water coming? 2012 seen Ditscheid flooding and that is 400+ meters above the see level. That was just one day of very heavy rain.
What really gets me about the situation in that region is that when driving along the L257, between the road and tops to the right, direction Adenau, it's clearly visible that these plains are flood plains. Who allows to build there? It's the same in Monschau. On the other side of the bridge across the old town, there were new houses built maybe a meter higher than the river.
- Storm, Samza & Flink are stream processing engines.
- Spark is a Map/Reduce framework that uses memory to cache computations to provide some performance increase over other disk-based frameworks. It can also do some streaming computations if you squint hard enough.
- Confluent is a company that sells an enterprise Kafka.
Kafka's homepage[1] advertises stream processing as a feature
> Built-in Stream Processing
> Process streams of events with joins, aggregations, filters, transformations, and more, using event-time and exactly-once processing.
Kafka Streams is a streaming framework that uses Kafka's already existing features to implement itself - so resilience and parallelisation is implemented using consumer groups, exactly once using Kafka's transactions and idempotence, topics are used (as well as RocksDB) to store state for stateful aggregations etc. etc.
So unlike Flink, Storm, Spark, Heron etc. it's only useful with Kafka.
The salary discussion aside. That's what I have always been ad odds with OSS.
Nobody is forcing you to put it up for free.
Put a price tag on it an sell it. If it doesn't sell, lower the price. If it still doesn't sell, good. Stop trying to force adoption on software that cannot sustain itself.
Under the OSIs definition of open-source, and under the definition of free software, anyone can buy your software and redistribute it to others for free. This effectively limits you to earning money only off the labor of your work, not the work itself, and makes your business model effectively useless. This is such a huge difference yet the FSF, as always, confuse people (maybe even intentionally) by saying that free software can be commercial. No, it cannot. The services you provide can be, the labor you provide can be, but the software - no.
You can remove that freedom to the user. After all, the source is available, it can still be tested for malware, but your work won't be open-source.
How does open source get money? According to the original GNU Manifesto from the 1980s
> All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
The GNU Manifesto arguably concedes OSS won't make money
> In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.
The OSS/donation model is a reaction to how hard it is to sell libraries and dev tools. Between competing open source projects and piracy, it's a race to zero anyway.
The moment Babel actually has to be sold for $1 is the moment it dies and everyone still using Babel switches to alternate compilers.
The project is surviving on fame, and donation's the easiest way to fund that.
first scrapping old but reliable cars with cash incentives to buy "clean" diesel. Then dieselgate pushing for gasoline powered cars and getting pennies on the dollar back. Now killing ICE alltogether.
Not going to buy VW Group cars anytime soon.
The writing is on the wall. In Europe several big cities as well as countries have announced that they'll ban diesel engines in about 10 years, max. Some have announced that they'll ban all ICE cars in about 15-20 years.
Even bigger than the city by city ban is the huge, and ever more demanding EU commission fines on car makers, measured by grams of CO2 averaged across the fleet.
So what's happening is VW is trying to get ahead of the enormous fines which will make it impossible to keep selling larger sized ICE cars in the EU (e.g. SUVs which are becoming ever more popular in Europe).
> According to the EU, fleet emissions in 2018 were 120g/km, which means automakers need a 21 percent reduction overall to avoid fines that could total as much as 33 billion euros this year, according to some estimates. Each gram over the limit, per vehicle, will cost automakers 95 euros.
> Each automaker has a different target, based on the average mass of the vehicles they sell, and only 95 percent of sales are measured in 2020, meaning that some high-polluting cars won't count. Even so, analyst ISI Evercore has warned that the "2020-21 CO2 regulation poses the biggest risk to the auto industry in recent memory."
IDK, but I won't spend 30K in a car that only allows me to city travel. If I'm forced to live without an ICE I just won't have a car, and that's it.
That's fine for many people, not so good for the car industry and their direct and indirect jobs.
Buying a 6K second-hand car is not only much more ecological than buying a brand new electric car, but I have more range, I can get it cheaply fixed if I go to something like a Renault Clio, a Peugeot 206, Fiat Panda and the like.
Since I live in a flat and I don't have garage, I can park it in my street without worrying about recharging (it's just going to get me a few minutes to get to the gas station, a two minutes to get gas).
With the salaries in my area, spending 30K in a car it's just too much money. It's more than my current yearly salary. And there's plenty of people with lower income than mine.
Also, turns out electric cars come with a lot of bloat that breaks, so the most immediate upside of such car goes away.
As far as I can see, too much has to change for mass adoption. With the current trend they'll remind cars for rich countries and rich people for a lot longer.
I can understand the Fuzz in high-income countries. 30k seems doable when your income is in the range of 60-200k. For me 30K is a lot of money.
And honestly I don't really feel that moving around a massive battery in a newly produced car is better than buying a Fiat Panda and taking care of it. My brothers Panda is nearing 500.000 Km and it's fine.
Synthetic fuel and biofuels will probably be required for several decades until legacy equipment like farming machinery (not to mention military veichles) has been replaced/modernized. Regular cars, on the other hand, will probably be mostly electric within 15-20 years.
The main issues are power-grid development and EV range. I suspect those problems will be handled within 10 years.
No one talks about the biggest disadvantage of EVs which is extraction of lithium which is a threat to environment and people who are involved in it. Plus a major disadvantage is where these dead batteries end up! land fills which again is biggest threat to environment. Even batteries are recyclable but up to what extent one day they will end up in landfills [https://www.res-ev.co.uk/problems-with-ev/#:~:text=One%20of%....] . There are some other options like hydrogen powered cars which do not harm environment any way, i think more research should be done to promote them or any other absolutely cleaner biofuel powered cars
Yeah, that's another hurdle that needs to be tackled. Going electric is going to take decades, and we'll probably never be completely rid of combustion engines.
Since synthetic fuels are zero emissions, why would they ever need to be replaced by EVs? A better question is why we need to bother with electrification at all if there are alternative paths to zero emissions?
Particulate emissions can come from the tires. EVs aren't magic on this form of pollution. Plus, you can have particulate filters on the engine exhaust, reducing this greatly.
I wouldn't be surprised if ICE's powered by biofuel/synthetic fuel could be competitive with electic veichles given enough time to improve the technology. Most likely we are going to see some of that development as EV's simply cannot fill all the niches yet.
It changes things. Europe is developed. If Europe and other developed groups don't switch to clean energy, transportation, heating, etc, the future industrializing countries with probably 2-3-4 billion people will fry us all.
It's not a moral imperative, it's simple survival.
CO2 wise the shift to EVs alone will change almost nothing, you just centralize emissions at power plants. It does enable a potential shift to renewable energy sources, though.
It's even sooner than that in places. The UK has announced a ban on new ICE vehicles from 2030. To be seen how closely that's followed through on, we have a long way to go on charging infrastructure.
