Imagine Microblades: standard Android phone form factor slide in servers.
Building a home lab k8s cluster by buying something similar to a phone.you could go to a website say if you want a display or not, how much storage and than you have a flat server you just slide into your case.
Then a few years later you buy a stronger one and replace it while the old one is used by someone else.
Like how a Nas manages your disks, k8s could manage your Microblades.
Cheap ha with Autoupgrade capabilities.
I could also start using the outdated Microblades for offshoring when I keep them running at my parents place.
The enclosed could also provide networking and perhaps a 13" slide out display with a display selector.
Given that decent ARM cores are unpurchasable on SBC, and given the abundance of cellphones, this makes hella sense.
totally doable today. not holding my breath but usb4 also includes direct system-to-system connectivity, so these would be Just a Bunch Of Nodes with 40gbit connectivity each. plus the high efficiency & battery backups they already have today.
Wikipedias definition of inflation sounds exactly like op said and what I assume as well:
'In economics, inflation is a general increase in the prices of goods and services in an economy. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services; consequently, inflation corresponds to a reduction in the purchasing power of money.'
I can afford less for the same unit of currency (Bitcoin) therefore I have inflation or deflation if I get more.
And people claim that Bitcoin is inflation save due to a limit amount of bitcoins being produced (I read that multiple times) while this is just not true.
Intuitively laymen really care about purchasing power, not its cause, they just use inflation as a short synonym for reduction of purchasing power, because inflation is often the cause of reduction of purchasing power, but I think they aren't really synonyms.
It's not really safe from inflation, more correctly it is deflationary by design. The limited supply means you can't dilute the existing value by creating more coins, as you can do with USD (or any fiat currency)
The point of this discussion as I understand it is that the limited supply of bitcoin does not help with inflation in practice and, further, that monetary supply is not the only source of inflation to begin with.
It is correct that bitcoin is designed with limited supply in mind, but that does not necesaarily stop inflation and definitely doesn't in practice because currency risk dominates the perceived value of bitcoin.
As far as i remember, people often claimed that bitcoin protects against inflation, that statement has so many requirements attached so it doesn't matter in practice.
People buy smaller and smaller denominations of Bitcoin then.
Which means earlier you invest more your Bitcoin is worth.
Until someone realizes that who ever was rich before is now loosing valur by investing in BTC too late and making early adopters rich.
The question is only when this ruse gets so outbalanced that no one wants to invest anymore which will either lead to inflation or the big crypto burn.
Hey, this is really bad. I am disabled for Bipolar Schizoaffective disorder, living with it for 30 years, hospitalized quite a few times. I was on countless meds. They told me I needed them or I would get worse. But I kept getting worse.
Now, for the last 8 years I am med free and showing signs of recovery.
You do not need meds. You need to find out why you need them biologically. We know that ADHD is primarily caused by low dopamine. So why are you not making enough dopamine?
I am always happy for people who can work without meds, but extracting out from that to assume that every physical/chemical balance can just be cured by addressing some reversible root cause isn't really sound logic. There are lots of situations where our bodies don't produce enough of a chemical and there isn't really a solution for that other than to introduce more of that chemical.
I also feel like:
> We know that ADHD is primarily caused by low dopamine
is a bit of an oversimplification. ADHD is not always caused by low dopamine/norepinephrine/etc production, it's often in part caused by faster than normal reuptake of those chemicals. But when arguing that ADHD is entirely caused by environmental deficiencies, "you're not producing enough dopamine" sounds better than "your brain is absorbing dopamine too quickly so it's not signaling as effectively as it should even when it's released in the same amounts as other people."
And again, this is complicated and different people's brains work differently, medication isn't right for everyone. That's why doctors should be involved. But what's going on is a lot more complicated than "something in the environment is making you depressed so you don't release dopamine" or "you don't have enough of X vitamin so your body can't produce the chemicals it needs"; it's more accurate to say that ADHD is often caused by differences in how actual neurons and synapses interact.
If reabsorption is happening prematurely, it's not necessarily that less dopamine/norepinephrine is being produced, it's that the chemicals being produced aren't as able to be used to do the things they're supposed to do.
And that more complicated explanation ends up being a lot more useful to describe some of the less well-known symptoms of ADHD that sometimes pop up for some people; symptoms like hyperfocusing, poor interoception. It paints a more complicated, multi-faceted picture of how the body can find itself unable to stop focusing on things when neurotransmitters do manage to finally bond, or why certain bodily signals just don't seem to reach the brain reliably. I am not a doctor, but I think it's a lot easier to understand what ADHD does when you look at through the lens of a physical difference in the brain that has knock-on effects on how the brain continues to develop as it learns to rely on other signals and coping mechanisms and strengthen those pathways.
TLDR I kind of disagree with the explanation of people with ADHD as if they're dopamine-deficient, I think where modern research is leaning is that they (often, everyone is unique) have brains that aren't able to make use of the dopamine (and other chemicals, not everything in the world is dopamine) that is produced.
But apparently when you are grafana everything looks like a dashboard UI?
Joke aside I will have a look but I didn't like the screenshots before already. I like the dashboardy thing for dashboards but otherwise it's not a really good UI system for everything else.
> No wonder that it's hard for some people to see the Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes and what else those things are called.
On the other hand, it's quite easy. After the third flavor of ETH and nested contracts, I thought to myself "fuck, that's complicated." Then just follow Buffett's advice of not investing in things you don't understand.
I always thought that for something meant as a currency, it sure is hard to understand, even for a passively interested, financially literate computer scientist.
A currency is only useful if you can actually buy things you need with it, and that means (among other things) you need its value to be relatively stable.
Everyone (or almost everyone) pushing cryptocurrency is, in one way or another, a speculator, so their incentives are not aligned at all with people who might actually want to use it as a currency.
Even if you could do that, the barriers are insane compared to cash and cards.
Just the security practices required to avoid fraud are absurd, but since scammers can irreversibly empty your wallet, they're required. There's no credit card company to call, no fraud detection, no withdrawal limits, no way to lock your stolen card.
The same applies to personal information. Lose your key, lose your money. It requires the sort of data security and redundancy discipline that few people outside of tech are capable of.
My inability to understand these financial instruments without hours of study is why I never put money into anything other than a couple of major currencies for funsies. Vanguard ETFs, mortgages, and bank accounts make sense. So I keep serious money in those.
I'd argue it's hard to understand the higher-order effects of fractional reserve banking. The accounts are at least backed by a government and have over 100 years of lessons baked into them, so that's something.
With regulations people will be loosing their money anyway, but with confidence, because they will have a sense of some legitimacy.
The only regulations crypto needs is how to call things. Just like whatever Tesla has should not be called Autopilot, crypto prophets should not be allowed to call it investment. Call it gambling and off you go.
After 20+ years here (currently, like ~every other foreigner, leaving) I ascribe the failure of China to innovate at a rate matching its size, industrial significance and affluence to the politicization of its education and media systems primarily and secondly to its insistence on isolating young people from foreign internet influence. The dynamism of small business is a counter-weight, not a contributor. Local engineering staff are good, but they are primarily domain-specific pragmatists who lack both the theoretical foundations and the general analytical capacity to independently face ill-defined cross or novel domain problems and I believe this stems directly from the rote-oriented education system and "don't be the nail that sticks out" politicization of society as a whole. After decades of seeing the individual and original ideas of themselves and their peers put down, most Pavlovian subjects, regardless of nationality, are going to wind up cognitively and emotionally eschewing creative thinking. "Not my department" is rife. There are many great things about China historically and the modern supply chain is unrivaled, but culturally modern China is simply not aligned with R&D at a fundamental level.
> I ascribe the failure of China to innovate at a rate matching its size, industrial significance and affluence to the politicization of its education and media systems primarily and secondly to its insistence on isolating young people from foreign internet influence.
That follows an old pattern: In a leading history of modern China (1644 to the late 20th century) [0] they talked about the Chinese emporer's response to the Enlightenment in the West and the resulting power imbalance, which resulted in Western countries stealing Chinese cities and forcing trade on China (including opium). The following probably has a few details off, but my point is the general pattern:
Before the opium wars in the mid-19th century, the Emporer Qianlong wrote a famous letter in 1793 to the King George III of England in response to an offer of trade and diplomatic relations: "As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." [1]
The imperial policy was to severely limit all interactions with the outside: No diplomats, no trade, no tourists, nothing. Some foreigners lived in Peking, but were restricted in their movements and not allowed to leave China (read the cited letter for details). IIRC, foreign traders were restricted to special ports where they were isolated from the country itself.
Subsequently, the Western countries, with their advanced technology, siezed control of Chinese port cities and forced trade on China. The Chinese state could no longer deny the value of these manufactures, and China's need for them.
(Perhaps think of this from the perspective of an isolated country that lacked all IT and was trying to acquire it for their military, but without any exposure of their people to the people who make it and without any changes in their own society:) They tried to simply acquire the technology, but of course had trouble operating and maintaining it. Then they allowed certain military officers to receive training in operating it, but still couldn't supply their own parts, maintenance, etc. Then they learned some of the manufacturing, but didn't have the military doctrine or education to apply it. They tried learning the doctrine, but lacking Western educations, couldn't really utilize it or understand it broadly throughout their miltary. ... They tried expanding step by step, but in the end, lacking widespread Western education, they lacked people who could understand the technology and find ways to apply it. You would be surprised how much of Western values is embedded in that technology. (Again, some details may be off, but that was the pattern over decades.)
Today, thankfully, many people in China can access a better education and foreign governments no longer control parts of China. But it seems like the Chinese Communist government is trying to have capitalism and free markets without freedom and free-thinking - arguably another step in the same process. (And to be clear, I'd love for the people of China to have freedom and self-determination to control their own fates - I am sure they would thrive, as the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown.)
In many ways, IMHO, the current Chinese Communists are similar to the imperial dynasties that preceded them.
[0] Either Emmanual Hsu or Jonathan Spence, I don't recall which one.
Yes, history repeats itself. Perhaps human nature will never change, but we have the technology to meaningfully change our political systems, education, media, supply chains and social fabric and those together should be powerful enough to adjust our aggregate behavior. It is perhaps the greatest tragedy of modern China that it has come upon the most realistic such opportunity ever presented to mankind and so far squandered it on imitation and autocracy.
I wonder how much of that is a result of the state enforced cultural isolation-
(as a means of decreasing the chances of information and ideas which they actively censure from spreading in the population, ideas which would be likely undermine the current leadership's ability to maintain unilateral power. Just as Russia has experienced with its citizens as they become more connected to others outside of the country, whose individual liberties and relatively meritocratic economic systems they've begun to push for domestically)
-rather than lacking technical merits in what they create or the speed at which they do so.
> Perhaps our way might not be that bad after all.
I think it's a fundamental error to call anything 'our way' or 'their way'. It prevents you - and them - from learning and integrating ideas. My way is to avidly learn and use the best ideas I can find, regardless of their source.
Not previous poster, but I have a Samsung LS28AG700NNXZA
Some monitors have fans? That's news to me, I've never had a monitor that did. Didn't know they were common enough to make it an explicit deal breaker.
By "small team" I assume they meant a start-up - i.e the team is the company's entire dev.
As someone who works in a small team within a large corp where we use k8s for everything large and small, I did not read that statement as applying to me.
Building a home lab k8s cluster by buying something similar to a phone.you could go to a website say if you want a display or not, how much storage and than you have a flat server you just slide into your case.
Then a few years later you buy a stronger one and replace it while the old one is used by someone else.
Like how a Nas manages your disks, k8s could manage your Microblades.
Cheap ha with Autoupgrade capabilities.
I could also start using the outdated Microblades for offshoring when I keep them running at my parents place.
The enclosed could also provide networking and perhaps a 13" slide out display with a display selector.