I remember someone giving a lecture on software engineering methodologies who gave a pretty good summary by saying that "The methods are there to help your brain, not to replace your brain."
I guess everything is relative, but I'm not sure I would say the economic damage is minimal. Maybe in comparison with other countries, but I'm not sure how clear that is. Especially if other countries can go South Korean style and get back to full speed faster, Sweden could very well be left behind in terms of the economy as well.
Number of deaths so far is very high compared to the neighbouring countries, and there is still a long way to go before herd immunity.
In general, it seems to me quite insane that Sweden already in the beginning of March basically had decided to infect millions of people with a virus we only had a month of experience with or something like that.
Like every other time people talk about economic damage and "letting the cure be worse than the disease" the specific dog whistle above is talking about the impact to companies, in particular the banks which rely on rent and loan payments, which has been heavily targeted for indirect subsidy in the US - compared to talking about the damage this does to individuals and their well being, all of which can be well supported through this crisis with an approach like that taken by Denmark.
IANAL but I think the GDPR does not just look at the data in isolation, but considers the data and what it is used for.
Thus if I give a company access to my data it does not give them a carte blanche to use it however they see fit, instead I have allowed usage of the data for a set of purposes.
I find this notion that you should be absolved of all responsibilities just because you give it away for free to be completely wrong. They should still be transparent about what they are doing.
This notion also does not translate very well to things which are not related to IT. I use a very large number of things in my daily life which I am not paying for but I still expect them to work and be safe. Or would be it be fine if I take an elevator and it falls down and kills me? Or whoops, I got a free candy which turned out to contain toxins. I guess I didn't pay for the service so why do I have some expectations for it to work or be safe?
> Or would be it be fine if I take an elevator and it falls down and kills me? Or whoops, I got a free candy which turned out to contain toxins. I
Those things are paid for by someone who is expressively giving you rights to those goods/services. Just because Method Gaming is paying for their discord server so you can enjoy your free service, doesn't mean they are necessarily aware that you are using their paid-for server resources. OTOH, if I am renting an apartment from a building (which I pay for) and someone comes to visit me in the elevator, I expect that the elevator cost I pay for through my rent is safe enough for you travel in.
> guess I didn't pay for the service so why do I have some expectations for it to work or be safe?
Safe != privacy. The issue is not necessarily security (although there is an implication there as well), but more so it's privacy.
How is Discord not being transparent here? They never claimed they were E2E encrypted, and the WebRTC spec doesn’t support one to many encrypted streams.
It doesn’t seem fair to burn Discord at the stake for a feature they never claimed to provide.
If we're going to wander off into metaphor, this seems more analogous to a doorman refusing to allow you to bring your 800lb gorilla (sneakily dressed as your child) onto the elevator.
I guess I could have been more clear. I was not primarily discussing this particular case of what Discord is doing. Instead of I was against the notion that I cannot have any expectations because something is free.
If you want to argue that Discords measure in this case are fair then I'm fine with that, but just something like "STFU the service is free" is not enough when it comes to these companies with massive impact on society, IMO at least.
Edit: After thinking about this a bit more, I guess the point is that if they are just dropping (potentially) malicious data, or in your case not letting a gorilla through the door. This does not have anything to do with the service being free as far as I can see, they can be argued for independently.
Instead I see people defending questionable behavior by pointing out that the service is free. And the point I tried to make originally was that I would like to at least be informed about the questionable behavior, so I have a chance to take this extra "cost" into account when I select a product.
I don't think people are defending the service just because it's free.
We simply cannot expect something to be had for free without making money to support the service. Unfortunately, one way to monentize the service is to sell user data.
This case reminds me a bit about the US embassy in Moscow, where the US let the Soviet provide them with premade concrete pieces for the construction [1]. The idea was that it would be enough to inspect them to detect if any bugs had been inserted.
This plan didn't work out in the embassy case, but I'm not any kind of expert on electronics, so maybe the lessons learned doesn't translate exactly to the PCB situation.
There is an article from a Swedish tabloid which could be of interest [1], unfortunately only available in Swedish AFAIK. The reason this article is of interest is mainly that it shows that the Swedish prosecutors seem to be extremely reluctant to issue arrest warrants for people in other EU countries.
In summary, and I hope I do not misrepresent the article too much, a man from Sweden went on a one-day cruise to the Åland Islands. After being out partying on the ship he goes back to his cabin. On his way there he meets two musicians (temporarily) employed by the cruise company and somehow get into a fight with them. (The article is very sparse on details on how the fight started, for the record.)
Note that the fight takes place in front of a CCTV camera, and supposedly one can see on the surveillance photos one of the musicians taking charge and stomping the victim five times in the head, with full force. After briefly leaving, the musicians then returns and kicks him in the face, twice.
The article then discusses the subpar response from the security guards employed by the cruise company.
The musicians are later arrested by the Åland police, their identities checked, but are later released. According to the article they are released because the possible crime was committed in Swedish territory and they are not Finnish citizens [2]. The musicians then return home to Ireland.
However, Swedish police or prosecutors do not seem interested in investigating this case. When pressed on why the prosecutor does not issue an arrest warrant for the men, their identities and whereabouts are supposedly known, he responds by saying that the Swedish prosecutor authority cannot go chasing people all across Europe and they only issue arrest warrants for very serious crimes, like murder.
To summarize the timeline. These events took place in October 2009, if I understand correctly. The Assange case started in August 2010. The news paper article was published in late October 2010.
So, according to this tabloid story, this is an open and shut case for a fairly serious crime, and still the prosecutor authority cannot even be arsed to issue an arrest warrant. At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy far longer than he could even be sentenced to for the crime he is accused of commiting. And the Assange case certainly seems much more flimsy, I'm not even sure what he is accused of, exactly. But it certainly seems to boil down to some he-said, she-said situation that will be completely impossible to get to the bottom of.
IIRC he can at most be sentenced to 4 years in prison for the sex crimes he is accused of in Sweden. But in practice he will be released after serving two thirds of this sentence, so he would spend at most 2.6 years in prison. Note also that it seems to me EXTREMLY unlikely that he would recieve a sentence of 4 years, at the very most 2 years but 1 year seems more probable. So if he just left the embassy, went to Sweden and lost the case, then he would most likely be a free man after just 8 months. So his actions certainly seem to indicate that he fears something more than just being found guilty of "less-severe rape". (Sounds a bit weird but is the crime he is accused of IIUC.)
Just to reiterate, he has spent close to 7 years in the embassy for a crime which he would quite likely serve 8 months in prison for.
With the caveat that I am now a lawyer, and whatnot. Quite possibly I've screwed something up in this last part of the analysis.
Edit: To further clarify the point, I guess it is that there is maybe not anything wrong with how he is being treated if one looks at this case in isolation. But when one combines this with how other cases seem to be handled, as well as considering proportionality, things are less clear.
> At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy
Assange wasn't locked in the embassy. He was free (and encouraged by the British, and until they gave up the Swedish) to leave at any time.
Assange chose to stay in the embassy for longer than his likely worst-case sentence, until expelled, in a futile attempt to avoid potential US charges he wasn't then facing and which his decision to delay proceedings so long made actually enabled to come through while he was still in custody following the expiration of Ecuadorian hospitality.
Firstly, I was replying to a post which asked for in which concrete ways Assange was being treated differently from other people in similar situations. I have a bit of a hard time understanding why this phrasing of mine which is not terribly important need to be debated, but OK.
I have in all honestly not followed the Assange case that closely. But my understanding of the situation was that he went to the embassy because he feared he would be extradited to the US and face possible human rights violations if that were the case. Maybe he is de jure "free" to leave the embassy, but it is not as clear that he is de facto free to leave.
Simple example, suppose we just get rid of all the governments etc, and everyone is just "free" to do whatever they want. So in this fantastic world, maybe you are "free" to do whatever you want, but if you do certain things then some big bad guy comes and turns you into minced meat. Are you then "free" to do whatever you want, maybe this can be argued, I am not an expert in philosophy. But if you find it shocking that some (most?) people do not consider this to make you free to do these things, then I'm not sure what to say.
Secondly, you do not allow people to make different interpretations of the situation. You claim that this was a "futile attempt to avoid potential US charges he wasn't then facing", and sure, if you can prove this beyond reasonable doubt then of course there is nothing to discuss here. However, I see no such proof, not even an attempt at such a thing.
More concretely, are you going to tell me with a straight face that if you were in the position of Assange you would without batting an eye just go to Sweden and risk being extradited to the US? Like the US runs Guantanamo, bombs countries left right and center without UN approval, Snowden who exposed government lies and breaking of laws lives in exile, etc. Please note, my point here isn't that the US is terrible or anything, but just that Assange can have a justified fear of being treated poorly there given the circumstances.
So the question isn't really "which way is it", will Assange face human rights violations if he is extradited to the US? Rather the question seems to me to be something like, is it "completly insane" for Assange to think that he might face these violations.
At the same time they keep Assange locked in an embassy far longer than he could even be sentenced to for the crime he is accused of commiting.
It was Assange's choice to go the embassy, to request asylum, and to remain there for 7 years. Nobody made him do that.
And the Assange case certainly seems much more flimsy, I'm not even sure what he is accused of, exactly. But it certainly seems to boil down to some he-said, she-said situation that will be completely impossible to get to the bottom of.
Possibly. Assange fled to the embassy when he was informed he would be extradited to Sweden to face an investigation. One of the weird things about Swedish law is that back then it might not have allowed criminal investigations in absentia.
So his actions certainly seem to indicate that he fears something more than just being found guilty of "less-severe rape". (Sounds a bit weird but is the crime he is accused of IIUC.)
This answer is actually known. If he had been found guilty of rape in Sweden, he would have been deported back to Australia (since he is an Australian citizen). And Australia has no restrictions on extradition to the US, such as the exception for capital charges commonly found in the EU.
But when one combines this with how other cases seem to be handled, as well as considering proportionality, things are less clear.
This one is easy. That was actually Swedish policy (and possibly actually Swedish law) back then not to pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden, and they applied this same policy to Assange as well. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-...] But then the prosecutor got absolutely railed in Sweden for letting an accused rapist escape justice simply because he fled the jurisdiction. Unlike the Aland Islands case, in which the suspects were arrested but permitted by authorities to return home, Assange simply left...and that makes all the difference. It's one thing for someone to escape justice because authorities fucked up. But it's another thing to let someone escape justice simply because they decided to opt out of the process.
As explained in the answer to a sibling post, the question of if he is "locked" in the embassy or not seems mostly a philosophical one. Just imagine I used a different word if you do not like it.
The point I tired to make when I wrote this was that in some cases the Swedish prosecutor authority felt it was too inconvenient to even file European Arrest Warrants in the first place, and a prosecutor saying that this was only done in stuff like murder cases. Then in another case they are keeping a guy in house arrest for 7 years. I made this comment in reply to a request for how Assange was being treated differently compared to other people.
The second point about criminal investigations in absentia mostly seems like a "fun fact", and I dont really see anything I can reply to. Sorry if I'm missing something here.
Regarding the third point, yes, that was my whole point that Assange has shown that he seems to have genuine fear of being the victim of some form of human rights violations should he be extradited to the US. Since if he had no such fears, he could go to Sweden, and even if he loses the case he would be out walking in maybe as little as 8 months. Now he has spent 7 years in an embassy. It seems to me clear that he has demonstrated that he is not hiding in the embassy because he is afraid of the rape allegations in Sweden. If his fears are justified or not, I am not in a position to give any kind of serious answer to.
I am unable to find any support in the linked article that Sweden did not pursue criminal cases against foreigners outside of Sweden. But if you have any such evidence, and that there was a policy change with regards to Assange, then this is highly relevant in that it shows that Assange is not treated the same as others. In the tabloid article I linked the prosecutor seem to claim that for example in murder cases an international arrest warrant would be issued.
I'm not sure in what sense the prosecutor was railed for letting Assange go. And if so, which prosecutory? In fact, the Åland island case and Assange seem rather similar. Assange too was permitted to leave Sweden, according to the article you linked [1]
[1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-14/julian-assange-to-be-... Section "What happened next?", relevant paragraph "By the time a Swedish court ruled that Mr Assange should be detained for questioning, he had flown back to London (after being granted permission to do so by Swedish authorities). "
The points I tried to make are (a) Assange has only himself to blame for being stuck there for 7 years and then getting kicked out, and (b) that Sweden had a formal policy, and possibly even a law about not prosecuting non-Swedish individuals who were not physical in Swedish territory.
That article pretty clearly states that the prosecutor believed that Swedish law prevented the investigation from proceeding, and that matches what the prosecutor in the article you cited said to the tabloid.
The policy was changed because of Assange. It's not specially applied to him--the new policy applies to everyone. He's just the only one you here about outside Sweden because he's globally infamous.
Is there anything about this change? Because I'm certain Sweden has indicted people in absentia long before Assange, though it is rare. E.g. I'm pretty sure they indicted the person later convicted of the assassination of foreign minister Anna Lindh in absentia before he was apprehended, and that was back in 2003.
I'll also note that the prosecutor was contradicted by Swedish legal experts already back when Assange was detained in the UK and Ny first made that claim. It was noteworthy also because Swedish police sent people to interview two suspected murderers elsewhere in Europe while Assange's extradiction case was happening, yet Ny continued to claim it was impossible for her to do so with Assange.
I think Assange was being paranoid, but I also think Ny was letting her own preferences take precedence over pursuing the case as best possible, for whatever her reasons might be (I've in the past suggested that rather than US involvement it's more likely she "just" wanted to make an example of him, but that's pure speculation)
I'm not sure why you do not just provide a citation for this claim that Swedish law prevented the investigation from proceeding. The claim which seems to be the closest to this seems to be "In 2010, the prosecutor in charge of the case, Marianne Ny, said Swedish law prevented her from questioning anyone by video link or in the London embassy.". However, the very next sentence in the article goes on to say that "She later admitted it was legally possible, but refused to budge, saying that questioning him in the embassy 'would lower the quality of the interview'."
With regards to the policy change, to some extent I dont care if they apply it consistently to other people now as well. Just that they changed the policy when they were chasing a guy who had pissed of and embarrassed the most powerful nation in the world seems very, well, convenient.
Perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure I am convinced that there has been such a massive policy shift as such. I would like to hear more about these other people that are being chased all around Europe by the Swedish prosecutor authority, but we don't hear about because they are not globally infamous.
I should perhaps add that just because Assange is (possibly) treated differently, this does not prove that there is some conspiracy against him or whatever. This case has gathered a lot of media attention and whatnot. In many ways a conspiracy seems unlikely, or at least unnecessary. Many of the actors involved seems to just follow the path of least resistance and/or acting in their own interest. Sweden does not have much to lose by doing this, certainly relations between US and Sweden are not damaged by this. Marianne Ny seems like a somewhat crazy feminist who IIRC has made statements that the methods she has developed for investigating crimes against women has "good effect on the perpetrator even in those cases where he is not found guilty by a court of law".
Having been forced to dabble in the Microsoft world I have in general found documentation to, at least in some cases, be very sparse. Or maybe I've just not found the right resources?
For example, I was looking for some documentation on how to tune the CLR, and performance tips for writing C# in general. In Java there are lots of books on the topic, and I know of some blogs on the JVM internals, but for .Net all I could find was one small (selfpublished?) book. I'm not sure it would be fair for me to judge the state of the blogs and online resources, but at least I did not find what I was looking for at the time.
Similarly, I had to try some stuff with Service Fabric, and it felt more or less impossible to get it working with the publicly available documentation. I'm really not sure how they think one is supposed to learn how to use that technology.
Lastly I've been dealing with shipping and releasing natively compiled binaries for Windows etc, and here I've found online resources, but mostly unofficial ones. This whole area seems rather hairy and it feels a bit scary to rely on some random blogpost or stackoverflow answers for what (not) to do.
In general from what I've seen is that the Microsoft documentation is very much How-To focused. But there is often a lack for more comprehensive documentation like a man page, and in particular I've found it hard to get "sharp" information, like what are the exact guarantees for this thing.
Not the person you were talking to, but to me this just feels like a MASSIVE straw man. If you can show that some company prefers men and actually discriminates against women, I think most people would agree with taking action against this. Unfortunately, you are very far from being able to show such a thing AFAICS. Instead it seems you are working backwards and inferring that there must be some discrimination because the outcomes are so skewed.
For large parts of my life I've seen massive and explicit discrimination against men. In junior high/high school various programs intended to increase interest in tech enforced a quota on 50% girls. Of course, this quota was never written down in public anywhere, I just accidentally overheard the organizers talking about this. Then at university I had male friends who wanted to help out on a similar program, and apparently their applications were "lost". Then the next year the organizers added text in small print somewhere that they were going to enforce a quota on the genders. Similarly, I've heard professors comment on hiring decisions with saying that if they don't hire a woman, then they've basically failed.
Again, at work I very often hear similar things when people talk about hiring in both private and even more in public sector, "Wouldn't it be very nice if we hired a woman", "You know it will look very good if had a few more women on the team", bla bla bla.
I can't say I've ever heard anything remotely similar to this which is negative to women. Maybe I'm wrong or biased here, idk. Maybe this discrimination occurs in different places/positions in the organizations to where I am at. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, but nothing really comes to mind.
I think there are two things which concerns me. Firstly, there is the difference between how explicit and clear the discrimination against men are when you are "backstage". From this side it is completely clear and there is no real attempt to hide it. But from the side of the person applying for the job/position/program, it really isn't very visible at all in most cases. If you are lucky there is some fine print somewhere. From my experience, like I write above, the discrimination against men/whatever is extremely frequent and pervasive in today's society, but of course, I just have my own observations and maybe it's different in other companies, etc.
Secondly, I feel the proponents of discrimination against men never point to anything remotely specific. It's always just "oh, there isn't enough women in tech", there is some "glass ceiling" stopping women, there are "hidden structures acting against women", etc. And at some point this starts to get ridiculous, like I've pointed out above, for more or less my whole life I've seen massive and completely open discrimination against men, and now I'm supposed to believe in some "invisible structure" which is acting against women all over the place?
Let me just finish by saying that I don't really claim to know why the world works the way it does, or why things are the way they are. And I don't think one should pay too much attention to all of these biology based explanations for why there are fewer women than men in tech. To me they are more just like "this could be one possible explanation for the phenomena as well". The main take away from them should, in my opinion at least, be that we don't understand this area very well. Unfortunately, I think people who propose biology based explanations often pushes these theories like we know they are true and that this is the explanation. I have not looked at the studies they refer to in any detail, but I have a hard time believing this is the case.
It seems that we mainly disagree about what constitutes discrimination. In my opinion, it is about opportunities. When 90% of the developer jobs are performed by men, it is really hard for me to see how men as a group can be disadvantaged.
It might be that the 91st man will not get a job because it is given to the 10th woman. But as 90 out of 100 jobs are given to men, it seems obvious to me that the group of men has all the opportunities they can wish for.
Note that every explicit action taken to even out a disadvantage will hit individuals in the group which is not disadvantaged. For example, if a prestigious university hands out scholarships to poor students, fewer students from rich families will be accepted as a result. This is not disadvantaging the rich applicants, it is reducing their advantage a little.
So, OK, taking a step back and thinking about this. So my impression from the public debate and so on in the western world is that discrimination is seen as unacceptable and really not at all OK. From the impression I get it is probably something like a less severe human rights violation or something like that. Of course, not comparable to truly horrible things, but still it has no real place in any civilized society. So this the background I'm coming from, I'm not sure if I've misunderstood something, I'm not sure.
So based on this, society then wants to discriminate men as an extraordinary measure, because women has been discriminated in the past and there is a feeling this needs to be done in order to give women a fair chance etc etc etc. And so far I'm following the story and it seems at least understandable.
But now I'm starting to see a situation where it is very unclear to me what "advantage" men have over women. In particular, one thing I tried to raise with my previous post, even if I did not spell this out explicitly, was the question of proportionality. And again, maybe I'm missing something, but to me the discrimination against men seem very much out of proportion to any problems a modern day girl/woman have. (To be clear, say someone in their early/mid 20s.) In particular, given the amount of discrimination we are talking about I would expect something a lot more solid and rigorous than the explanations I'm seeing (e.g. men as a group being more advantaged, whatever this means).
In particular, given the background I give in the first paragraph, I'm honestly a bit shocked to see discrimination being proposed more as some kind of policy tool used to get society to where some people want it to go. Like let's raise the taxes on the rich and discriminate men a bit more. Again, I guess I have misunderstood something, because this conclusion certainly seems absurd, at best.
tl;dr either discrimination is really not OK, but then there needs to be a very good reason why we can discriminate men. Or, discrimination is not a big deal, but then why is this even a question up for discussion?
“It seems that we mainly disagree about what constitutes discrimination. In my opinion, it is about opportunities. When 90% of the developer jobs are performed by men, it is really hard for me to see how men as a group can be disadvantaged.”
If e.g. 95% of the qualified people are men, but only 90% of the accepted applicants (just making up numbers here) then clearly there is discrimination against men. Outcome by itself says nothing about discrimination.
I agree that your hypothetical is possible. However, in a field where men occupy 90% of all positions, I still find it hard to imagine that they discriminate against their own group, i.e. treat their fellow males "in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimi...)
I wasn’t the one claiming discrimination against men, and I don’t think it comes much from other employees. I will say that at every place I’ve worked men have been much more welcoming and helpful towards women than men, but as an okd-fashioned conservative I think that’s as it should be.
It’s undeniable that formal discrimination against men is common though, with lots of “women can code” programs and similar. Only last week PGs wife launched some initiative to pay women to go to some code camp, that jind of thing is very common. If you don’t think that is discrimination imagine it was exclusively for men or white people.
If there was a program exclusively for men to support male primary school teachers, it would be a really great initiative.
Male software developers are already well off, that's why a program "men can code" already sounds a bit ridiculous. But if any rich guy or girl thinks that this is a great idea, I wouldn't mind. Opening paths that were closed before is always good, regardless if for women or men.
I tried to explain it before, but would like to repeat here again. By opening paths for people who couldn't go there before, you will make life for the ones already traveling on that path less nice. This is not discrimination.
So without these initiatives it would not be possible for women to learn to program? What exactly is stopping them?
Of course it is discrimination to have programs that ezclude one gender. You might think it is justified but there's no doubt that it is discrimination.
Not sure if I'm missing something, but for the Techempower Bencharks [1] I had the impression that the bottleneck for other rust libraries were in accessing the database rather than handling http requests. However, looking at the code [2] it seems that the Actix solution isn't doing anything special with regards to this. Can someone give a quick description of "what" is causing such a huge performance boost for Actix compared to other frameworks?
(I might add that this is a question I've had for a while, and I did not check the source at [2] in detail today.)
Any chance you could elaborate on this, because I dont really understand how it answers my original question.
I have not checked recently, but last I saw, the database libraries for rust did not use async IO. Looking at (what I presume is) the code for the benchmark [1], it seems it imports the postgres and diesel crates. Last I heard diesel did not support async [2] and looking at the postgres crate [3] it does not mention async, which I assume it would in case it was supported.
My whole point was that, sure, I can see how async IO is important for handling many concurrent http requests, but each of those requests would still have to pass through the synchronous database driver which uses threadpooling, right? Or what am I missing here? I can see how it has great performance on the plaintext and json benchamrks, but I dont understand what gives it such a large boost in fortunes or multiple queries.
For example, Iron is doing 300k at plaintext/json benchmarks, but drops to 18k on fortunes, and the way I remember the benchmark code it is written in a fairly straight forward way. If the database layer supported 160k requests per second I dont see why we would see such a huge drop? (Edit: 160k is the performance of Actix on fortunes.)
I also recall seeing numbers on the 10k order of magnitude from doing naive benchmarks with the various database libraries available, without any http part to the application. But I'm not sure, maybe I'm missing something or remember incorrectly?
> I can see how it has great performance on the plaintext and json benchamrks
I actually forgot the DB tests were implemented; when I was sending in PRs, I was mostly thinking about plaintext and JSON, not database stuff. Sorry about that!
> Technically, sync actors are worker style actors. Multiple sync actors can be run in parallel and process messages from same queue. Sync actors work in mpsc mode.
So, you're still getting some degree of parallelism here. I wonder if that's it?
(You're right about the fact that the DB APIs are currently synchronous.)
Actix provides actor abstraction over synchronous code and allows to communicate with it in async manner. TechEmpower benchmarks uses sync actors for db operations and http part is async. I am not sure how this help though, tokio-minihttp also uses threadpool for db operations, results are not that good
From my cursory understanding there is following. There is a n async protocol for `postgres` crate called `tokio-postgres`[1] (it's a child crate that is enabled via feature). However, either only Postgres supports async protocols or there isn't an async protocol for Rust outside of `tokio-postgres`.
However, Diesel uses `libpq` over `postgres` (and its child crate `tokio-postgres`). Moving from `libpq` to `rust-postgres` would cause a lot of damage.
In this particular case I'm not sure that blocking internet access at the base will solve much since the data is stored on the device, and it's enough to bring the device to a location with internet access?
Basically people go home or whatever and plug in their Garmin and then it'll just upload the last 6 months of data, and there is the same issue.
Why do deployed soldiers need personal fitness trackers (or what did you mean by a Garmin). Surely anything with a GPS or other wireless network abilities is an affront to opsec I'd imagine?
"need" or "want"? I'm sure they don't "need" them any more than anyone else, but I'm also sure they "want" them for the same reason as everyone else that wants them -- for fitness tracking.
I was hoping for something a little more inciteful ;o)
My imagination of how an army is run requires careful maintenance of fitness of soldiers, so use of PT instructors, regular monitoring of fitness metrics. It also has dieticians to monitor food production/intake. Opsec would probably deny any personal electronic devices.
If a deployed soldier needs to track their personal fitness then that suggests a deficiency - fitness of sisters must be of prime importance during deployment? There seems no reason that soldiers wouldn't have a fitness record they could access that included all food intake, mandated exercise, regular weight monitoring, blood pressure, and whatever.
Of course, the use of personal fitness devices suggests my conception is wildly off how a deployed corpus of soldiers is actually run.
> My imagination of how an army is run requires careful maintenance of fitness of soldiers, so use of PT instructors, regular monitoring of fitness metrics
When deployed operationally fitness is usually your own business. PTIs often have a different job operationally (something like close protection of the commanding officer), although they may provide some mentorship and help improvise fitness equipment.
Generally soldiers are treated like professionals and left to manage their own fitness when deployed, using the skills and self discipline they've been taught. A fitness monitor is a good way to do that.
> Opsec would probably deny any personal electronic devices.
It doesn't. I've been told to not connect to Afghan mobile networks, and obviously not to talk about what you are doing, but apart from that you can just use your common sense.
> Of course, the use of personal fitness devices suggests my conception is wildly off how a deployed corpus of soldiers is actually run.
It's probably far more chilled out than you imagine. In my experience tech people think the Army is all 'sir-yes-sir'. I've literally never said that in my entire life in the military.
use of PT instructors, regular monitoring of fitness metrics. It also has dieticians to monitor food production/intake
Check the FB group Fill Your Boots for what Army catering is really like... Nutrition seems to be very, very far down the list of priorities.
Soldiers generally lose a lot of fitness while deployed, manning an observation point or a weapons emplacement just doesn’t involve much movement, only a small minority are out on foot patrolling every day.
They are not robots. Why do they need iPads? Why do they need personal phones? Not being snide, but when on deployment they have a LOT of tech tools, just like any other demographic of folks. It's just a thing ...
True and false. At the moment, they are inexorably linked if tracking how much and how well you move is part of your fitness plan. GPS tends to be part of a common and usually pretty smart way to do that. For people who are deployed, it's important to have metrics of personal performance and keep track of any progress or decline in physical capabilities. Using that data wisely makes them better at whatever they do.
The problem isn't just the soldiers and it's not just Strava, it's the culture around data itself. Tech companies that produce quantified-self devices or services need to realize the ENORMOUS responsibility they're taking on by collecting and using this data. Users need to realize just what it is they are sharing and how their data gets from point A to point D. Burying it in the fine print is not enough. Maybe people should get into the habit of looking at the data profiles each company has on them or at least being aware of the totality of what's collected so they can make better decisions. It is kind of ironic that the point of collecting this data is to help people make better decisions while this particular case is actually a collection of really bad decisions. Fire is both a useful tool and a dangerous chemical reaction, this is no different.
Perhaps there needs to ALWAYS be an option to route the data to a private server of the user's choosing instead. If that were standard practice, it probably could have prevented this problem.
Well, the data does not just appear on strava all by itself. I made an assumption that a non-neglible fraction of the data uploaded was from Garmins/fitness trackers or similar devices (like watch for tracking your running etc).
I guess people could also be using their smartphone app, which I am less familiar with. If I'm misunderstanding what the source of the data is I apologize.
