I believe his point was that it was transformative for the elites (who are the one writing history) but not so much for society in general. A refreshing point of view; I also believe we tend to inflate the influence of war and politics and agency really in history.

If that was their point, then their point is completely wrong in the context of the War of Hastings.

Do you and the GP really not know anything about how William/Guillame's victory tranformed England, for everyone? The very language we're writing in at this very moment is a direct consequence of that victory.

I believe we all agree about the facts, just not about what constitutes an "important change".

Most people lives were unaffected; most people kept their language, their traditions etc. For contrast, compare with: the third Punic war, setting foot on America in 1493, the industrial revolutions...

Some of us have just decided that's where we draw the line: An event that is important enough to wipe out and replace the whole ruling class but that does not change, one way or another, the way people live, is not "important".

There are multiple time frames to be considered.

It is true that in the immediate aftermath of Hastings, life for most folks continued on largely as it had before.

But in the longer term both the administrative structure of the country (which very much affected individual folks' lives) and the language were significantly changed.

I don't see a reason to privilege one of these over the other. You could make the case, for example, that WWII was of little consequence because Germans today live much the same sort of life that they'd have been living if there had been no WWII. That's not clearly a false claim about people's lives, but it doesn't really serve the purpose of understanding the consequences of war very well.

A single hash should be enough.

Yes, but what's easier depends on layout. "Consensus" makes me think of multiple entire nodes, and in that situation you can have a nice symmetry by making each node store one copy and one small hash.

If you're doing something that's more centralized then one hash might be simpler, but if you're centralized then you should probably use your own error correction codes instead of having multiple copies.

Yes, and email is just a way to exchange phone numbers.

I am not familiar with the nitty gritty of container instance building process, so maybe I'm just not the intended audience, but this is particularly unclear to me:

  > To avoid the costly process of untarring and shifting UIDs for every container, the new runtime uses the kernel’s idmap feature. This allows efficient UID mapping per container without copying or changing file ownership, which is why containerd performs many mounts

Why does using idmap require to perform more mount?

The costly process probably explains why they just started injecting ads in my plan where there previously weren't any.

And also explains why rather than be leveraged into a more expensive plan to help them pay for their containers, I cancelled my subscription. Not like there's more than 1% content there worth paying for these days anyway.

This kind of id mapping works as a mount option (it can also be used on bind mounts). You give it a mapping of "id in filesystem on disk" to "id to return to filesystem APIs" and it's all translated on the fly.

Thank you! Going to ask an LLM to lecture me on this when I have some time; good to see that humans are still the best at giving just the right amount of explanation :)

This still sounds odd. Where is this restriction coming from?

It has binding arbitration. I assume/hope you must be an adult to sign away your right to sue.

Speculation I've seen is that whatever LLM they're reselling has this requirement itself and they need to pass it along.

I had expected this to be about their multi-user editing and chat features.

Let's pretend for a moment that age verification has anything to do with protecting kids.

If we agree that nobody should be viewing porn because it makes us worse human beings, then maybe we should be wondering why producing it is permitted in the first place?

I have no definitive opinion on the topic, like everyone I am torn between desire for individual freedom and desire for effective collective measures. I wish I lived in a world in which we could regularly and scientifically assess the costs and benefits and just enact policies accordingly.

> If we agree that nobody should be viewing porn because it makes us worse human beings,

I'm not necessarily saying that it's bad for adults to be viewing porn. I think there's an argument to be made that it's bad for all humans, though I personally don't think I subscribe to it. Since I don't think it's inherently bad for an adult to watch it, I don't think there should be prohibition on producing it.

I mean, let's rewind back to before the internet; if I thirteen year old wanted to view porn they couldn't easily go to a store and buy it, and even if they did get some the stuff that was easily available, to my understanding, was tame compared to what you get on PornHub. If a kid got a Playboy or caught something late-night on Skinemax, they'd see a booby and some obviously fake moaning, not hardcore stuff you get on pretty much any site.

Obviously this kind of stuff doesn't affect everyone the same way. Many, many, people looked at porn when they were teenagers and most of them aren't incels or creeps, but I don't think it's something that kids should really be viewing. I think drawing the line at "adult" vs "not adults" is a good enough demarcation.

Is it ok for adults because they are accustomed to it already? Or is it because they know better how to use the internet? In either case nobody would suffer from the disappearance of disturbing violent porn but the few ones who make money out of this industry.

The hard question remains: what individual freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for this? Is it worth a Prohibition like policy? Online surveillance?

But in all seriousness, let's not pretend this has anything to do with kids' safety. This is just one more step from the global village towards the safe shopping mall.

> Is it ok for adults because they are accustomed to it already?

I think it’s ok for adults because they aren’t nearly as confused and developing sexually. I think an adult viewing porn is more likely to be able to contextualize it as fiction/fantasy than a young teenager.

> But in all seriousness, let's not pretend this has anything to do with kids' safety. This is just one more step from the global village towards the safe shopping mall.

Ok but that’s why I am conflicted about it. I don’t know the motivations of lawmakers, I am saying my perspective.

Or if they dare run two apps at the same time, as if it's 1970 all over again!

  > No one wants to compromise on design.

I, the user, would totally want that.

The user is at the bottom of the stakeholder list.

I can feel my advertiser data being siphoned from my body already!

The author forgot one very important reason to go for engineering manager: the hiring process does not include X slow rounds of leet code.

Are we back to the beliefs into inherited nobility already?

There are things that aren't true but the wider society must believe to be true in order to maintain social order. Think of religion for example. "We are all equal" is also one of those things.

This could also be read as a take on the nurture aspect of childrearing.

It is literally just game theory. If you don't act, others still will. Multiply that times 8 billion and you have an evolutionary process that rewards the dumbest amongst us.