Less wrong is created by Eliezer Yudkowsky. Someone who is very outspoken against AI development, because of the fears around AI destroying humanity. Once went as far as calling for the bombing of AI researchers and/or data centers, if I remember correctly.
This makes it sound like he called for terrorist attacks.
He said something along the lines that countries should make an agreement to stop AGI research, and if a rogue nation starts developing advanced AGI anyway, other countries should be willing to call an airstrike on the datacenter. Because he believes AGI is that dangerous.
It was even a D3 thing already, remember the RMAH ? The main reason why (almost) all ActiBlizz games are online only is to make cheating harder. (They are particularly victims of their own success here, less popular games have it easier.
There is a base alternative, which I'm going to choose, and that's just to use social media less. Not going back to Reddit even if another alternative doesn't pop up.
My 11 year account was just banned as well. I don't remember posting anything terrible recently. So not sure what's going on, but I won't be appealing or making a new account or going to the site anymore.
> we have chosen to put the burden for paying for those losses on all of the other banks
But isn't it likely to cause more bank runs if depositors lost money? So in a real sense, many other banks were saved from going under, by assuring depositors that their money is safe, whichever bank they're at.
My understanding is that other banks have massive unrealized losses as well, due to the steep interest rate increases. So they're all kind of vulnerable.
I'd say it's more likely that there will be at least slower rolling runs on smaller banks by large depositors. Keep in mind that the unlimited coverage only applies to the depositors of the two banks that were taken over, not all depositors everywhere. Keeping large balances in a bank that may not be deemed a systemic risk is still rolling the dice if said bank fails. (i.e. unless a bunch of other banks fail around the same time getting national attention, you'd probably be out of luck)
I think the point here isn't about how quickly videogames or consoles boot, but rather that if your program takes longer to start than a significantly more complicated videogame from the same era, then you're doing it wrong, and as a result wasting your users' time.
It's a view I shared in the past - it held throughout the entire "desktop computing era", until consoles and PCs started to converge, and the asset bundle size of a typical game inflated rapidly.
I don't think you actually understand what microservices are. You don't put a load balancer to load balance between different services. A load balancer balances trafic between servers of the same service or monolith.
Microservices mean the servers of different services run different code. A load balancer only works together with servers running the same code.
>A load balancer only works together with servers running the same code.
Uh - what?
>A load balancer balances traffic between servers
Correct.
> of the same service or mononlith
Incorrect.
Load balancers used to work solely at Layer 4, in which case you’d be correct that any 80/443 traffic would be farmed across servers that would necessarily need to run the same code base.
But modern load balancers (NGINX et al) especially in a service mesh / Kubernetes context, balance load at endpoint level. A high traffic endpoint might have dozens of pods running on dozens of K8s hosts having traffic routes to them by their ingress controller. A low traffic endpoint’s pod might only be running on few or one (potentially different) hosts.
The load balancer internally makes these decisions.
Each set of upstream hosts in nginx is a single instance of load balancing. You aren't load balancing across services, you're splitting traffic by service and then load balancing across instances of that service.
The split is inessential. You can just as easily have homogeneous backends & one big load balancing pool. Instances within that pool can even have affinity for or ownership of particular records! The ability to load balance across nodes is not, as you claimed, a particular advantage of microservices.
I don't really think of route based "load balancing" as load balancing. That's routing, or a reverse proxy. Not load balancing. Load balancing is a very specific type of reverse proxy.
The point is, if a client makes a request to a server, the response should always be the same, no matter where the load balancer sends the request to. Which means it should run the same code.
Nginx doesn't even mention route based or endpoint based load balancing in their docs. Maybe they don't consider it load balancing either.
Friend, you don’t know what you’re talking about and if linking NGINX documentation literally describing load balancing algorithms applied across Kubernetes pods hosting endpoints doesn’t clear things up for you, I don’t think anything will.
