> One can in hindsight see that our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced).
I've never run a bank either, but their current setup is very cost effective. A true multi cloud architecture would be "much" (a couple of 9s) more available, but I believe it would introduce other issues. The goal was to ensure the use of a subset of features for short periods of time, which is probably already above the market standard.
The cost effectiveness doesn't really add up for me either though (and again, I lack a lot of context). 1% of cost to run everything essential doesn't pass the sniff test, I assume it's much more during an actual failover. But I'm also not suggesting running any more hardware than the number of failure domains you want to be resilient to losing, and on cloud you could choose to run less and scale (assuming you aren't concerned about stockouts).
My guess is a little of both. I would bet that the 1% is the unused cost, but that for periods that they are running the stand-in system it's much closer to normal. But from what I've heard of their infrastructure I'd also bet that stand-in is significantly cheaper in part because it had the benefit of hindsight and could resolve issues in the first system.
None of this really changes my original feeling though. A cell based architecture spreads the risk, failover is essentially built-in without being a special mode you have to put the system into and then recover from again, on cloud you can scale those up and down with traffic and they also take peaks from each other, and so on. There's a reason why there are very few cloud outages that cross all regions for a provider, and if you're paranoid you can run multi-cloud (as they already do).
"Just do multi-cloud" is burying the lede a bit. Monzo is a bank, so it's not a given that they can easily partition all their operations into fully independent cells. I'm reasonably confident that teams of average competence could implement a second system for failover. I'm much less confident in teams of average competence doing complicated distributed systems work correctly, and doing it incorrectly is potentially existential risk for a bank.
I'm European. I think Europe’s main problem is that its leaders and citizens are more concerned with how to distribute wealth than with creating it. In many countries, much more importance is placed on pensions than on the education of the younger generations.
Krugman’s analysis may well be accurate, but the problem is that China is now beginning to assert itself in sectors where Europe used to be strong (manufacturing, automotive, etc.). If our software is American and our hardware is Chinese, who will pay for the pensions?
Yes, but this only works as long as the economy remains competitive. Europe is rapidly squandering the human and economic capital it has accumulated over centuries, while the US and Asia continue to grow. Welfare exists as long as someone pays for it.
This is a problem, but unrelated to what the parent is saying. If you taxed 100% of the wealth of all US billionaires it looks like it would pay for social security, medicare, and medicaid for about a year and a half.
You still need a strong economy and middle class tax base to have any sort of welfare state.
The best cars were built between 2000 and 2010. Pretty much the pinnacle of the internal combustion engine without all the millions of lines of buggy code that apparently no longer allow you to open your car freely.
In ~2005 I worked with a world-renowned expert on industrial automation and computer control of machines. He drove a 1989 Mercedes 300 sedan with a manual transmission, which he claimed was the last car made with no software in it at all. These two facts are not un-related.
By the 80s electronics were common with fuel injection, but I consider them more like factory controllers than what we call a computer. They're little 8080 variants running closed loops and activating or deactivating output pins
pre 1997/8 Dodge 2500/3500 diesel trucks have mechanical engines in them. Other than the starter you really only need one other wire... goes to the shut off solenoid.
One of my cars is a 2011 Volvo XC90 with ~250K miles on it and I plan to drive into the ground. It's definitely the tail end of that sweet spot and it's quite surprising that it's (technologically) as simple as it is. It has a basic AWD system and only a simple cruise control system but it's the perfect feature set and I use it 80% of the time I'm driving. (I've driven late model rentals which have "smart cruise control" systems and find their "corrections" very unnerving.) For A/V, it doesn't have a backup camera (admittedly kind of a bummer), any LCD screens or touch screens and it doesn't even have Bluetooth for auxiliary audio input. The keys and fobs are about the only aspect of it that I'd say are over-complicated, as it's never had a working fob since I've owned it and getting one is prohibitively expensive ($500+).
That all being said, it's (probably?) not spying on me and isn't likely to do anything unexpected and weird on the highway like the post mentions. I can also totally work on it myself or get my local mechanic to. Although, unsurprisingly, parts are hard to find and more expensive than they are for my Honda.
I've taken it into the Volvo dealership for service on a few occasions and they legitimately laugh at me. ("How many miles are you looking to put on this thing?") I trust their technicians and am willing to pay for certain jobs and diagnoses (probably their most valuable offering) but their service and salespeople look down their noses at me and it's unpleasant. As others have said, Volvo was absolutely a great car company in the past but it doesn't seem to one anymore. Despite how much I like my car, I can't imagine buying one of their modern, tech-centric models -- in part because of posts like this one.
Yep. Many of them are still good and are on the road even with 100,000s of miles on them. Best car I had was a 2007 Vauxhall Astra. Did about 150,000 miles (and I really ragged it). Still on the road apparently. The 2012 Vauxhall Insignia I have isn't great and I regret selling the Astra. Will be selling that car soon.
unless things have changed their remote policy is pretty much a no remote policy. to be fair to them, I last interacted with them 6 or 7 years ago so things could certainly have changed, but at least at the time I felt like "Remote" was a bait and switch there
One of my coworkers had an offer for Datadog that was ostensibly sold to him as remote before being rug-pulled to a hybrid offer at the last minute. Best course of action here is to simply swap out "Hybrid" wherever Datadog states "remote".
Anecdotally, but my company adopted Datadog a few months ago and all their sales / solution engineering folks would usually be calling in from an in-person office. Rules out 100% remote, if nothing else.
is this true though?
reply