Yes it does, it means every "frame" (yay video games terms) of your life, including the complete state of your mind, is a cause of the previous "frame".
Every decision is a product of your experience and state of mind, that are the product of you previous decisions, that are the product of your previous experience.. something, something!
You can go get another beer, as would be expected given you had three previously and chose to come to a bar, or you can choose to go home and sleep, or get in your car and drive, or swear off drinking forever.
The fact that options are present to you because of your previous choices (causality) is irrelevant to the fact that you still have full control over what option you select (free will).
Yes, but to speak in video games term, you can still move the arrow of your character. Of course your decision are the product of your previous experience + a lot of other factors. But I believe there is a random factor, when we make a decision, we do choose one over the other.
We'll never know anyway, but I feel like there would be nothing, no universe, no life, no space etc... if there was not this "random" thing.
Randomness isn't exactly how most people would define control either.
Nevertheless, I agree with your critique of determinism. Think outside the "system". Nobody knows why stuff exists or why it behaves the way it does, it's all just observation and ideas.
I view it as a sanity check that's preventing us from transcending from reality into imagination, which might or might not have anything to do with how world works.
In the end most of those books have a huge build-up, but if you truly understand them, you can sum them up in one sentence. "If you got hurt you will hurt others". "Everything you do is egoistical". "Everything is choice". "There is no choice".
But then again, you don't need books for that. If you have the luxury (or curse) of being rational, you're 10 (5 maybe) and you're already having fatalist/whateverist thoughts. Then the next day you think about it, and realize it doesn't change anything in your life, and you move on. Then 10 years later you finally get to study the concept (or read it on a blog) and, well, it still doesn't solve or introduce any problem in your reality.
People who think/act irrationally aren't sensitive and don't find revelation when they read or hear about those principles, only confirmation where they can. There are things that happen in life that can shake you up and change you, but from a piece of text you'll only assimilate what's aligned with your views, IMHO.
They aren't perfectly secured. They seem secure for two reasons:
Try to hack a bank, or exploit credit cards, or even break in a vault, and you'll see what kind of external measures governments and private agencies put into protecting the system (hint: you'll get locked forever, or shot, or worse)
Now imagine you succeed, and somehow don't leave any exploitable trail, do you think a story will pop somewhere? I don't.
Centralized money systems are the reason today, what you make in a month working 16 hours a day in some country will buy you a drink in another. This allows rich countries to straight up buyout any poor country's production, and for trivial amounts. It leaves them in a state where people are starving, even though they produce enough to feed 10x their population.
Imagine a world where a bag of rice costs the same in every country. Yeah, currencies are awesome.
Edit: just to be clear, I'm not saying rich countries are evil(er), because this would not work without the cooperation of poor countries leadership.
Well, take a rice plantation. You need people to cultivate, maintenance, supplies, management. What would those people make on average in the US? 20k?
20k buys you 40t of rice a year on the current marker. How many people do you need on an exploitation to produce 40t/year? 3? 5? 10?
There's your number. With a year's work (doing the exact same thing), you can buy several people's yearly production. The reason for that are currencies.
Without them things would equalize over time (it's happening in EU right now, though only internally). It's a long and bumpy process, but eventually it removes the ability from a country to drain another for next to nothing.
Edit: deleted post said there was evidence a uniform supply pricing was actually bad for poor countries
I'm not a PayPal fan but reading how he supposedly obtained the digits, I immediately thought it was bullshit.
An insider seems likely, and it doesn't even have to be at PayPal. Most companies where you use your credit card either have your email, or could figure it out using your name / address.
There is a legion of people making six figures, who together have a lot of power if they were to try to do something. I know disruption or even violence won't help at first, but it raises awareness. Maybe then people can start talking about intelligent measures to help those who need it.
I know if I was making 200k I'd be glad to be taxed an extra %, if that money was going towards help for people who've seen the place they lived their whole life slowly push them out, even though they're still needed there.
That's an important point. The big fishes need the small ones to survive, so there's demand, demand for people to do lesser paid activities and being in a constant struggle.
Then again I'm Swiss, and we have a history of voting ourselves tax raises, most of which goes to to the lower classes in some way. We live in a pretty happy and safe society though, infrastructures are great and affordable (mostly free if you don't make much). Seems to me like a good tradeoff for passing on a new TV or some designer clothes once a year.
Unfortunately this is mostly a zero-sum game: there's a very limited supply of housing in San Francisco, and it's always going to go to the highest bidder, which is the eternal gentrification struggle. Rich people deciding they're willing to pay more taxes won't help here, because it won't create more housing supply.
Even a direct redistribution scheme wouldn't do much, because the rich will still be able to outbid the poor for the scarce apartments. Short of rich people deciding they don't want to take that job in the Bay Area or government straight up banning them from moving there, I don't think there's much anyone can do to help prevent the poor from being displaced.
Getting SF to allow new construction would help a lot (there are probably thousands of developers that would love to build 100+ unit luxury complexes in the Mission), but at this point it seems that's something of a losing battle. Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.
I understand the supply limitations, but we have the same problem, because we have a ton of traction towards higher-up professionals. The big difference lies within the political system. The housing/real estate market is completely free (and cutthroat) here too, but our more socialist oriented government interacts with it to help people in need.
Examples of that are "sponsored" apartments, that cities rent to their owners for regular price, and subside to people but with an adaptive price (much lower for lower income people, and a little higher for people who make more than average)
In more urgent cases, social services cooperate with people who own unused buildings, hotels during low season, etc, and pay a big price to keep people under a roof.
There's also a lot of work from associations to communicate with landlords and agencies, trying to help giving a fair chance and renting affordable places to people with regular income, students, etc, as many wealthy people are interested in cheap places too.
I feel like the people who control most of the market have a lot of political power, and they don't want a bunch of buildings popping out and lowering market pressure, making prices and their revenue drop. Money is not a definitive solution, but in the right hands it can help a lot. In turn it creates a nicer social climate, and things work out better for everyone.
A nicer social climate isn't in everyone's interest though, and a lot of people work very hard to make sure there is tension, because they profit from it, a lot.
>Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.
That's really unfortunate, I'd hope that people would realize that you can have good-quality high-occupancy construction(see loads of places in Europe, Japan).
I don't necessarily know if it's a zero-sum game though. If higher quality mass transit were in place, the cost of living out of the city would be lessened (both in cost and stress).
I think it would be really cool if San Francisco built a subway line that went down south. It would convince people to not live exactly in the city center (because you'd have relatively easy access by subway), so could ease real estate preasures downtown, and would generally encourage a better spread of the population. It's not that people want to live downtown, but that they want to easily get downtown.
people who've seen the place they lived their whole life slowly push them out, even though they're still needed there.
But they're clearly not still needed there - otherwise demand for their services would be high enough that they would be able to fetch a market price high enough to allow them to compete in the housing markets.
The big fishes need the small ones to survive
Let me ask a tough question: why do these big fishes need the small ones? What exactly makes the small ones so essential? To make coffee? To staff checkouts? If demand for these arguably location-limited services is so high, then a shortage of suitably qualified labourers will result in a price increase until demand and supply equilibrate. But I haven't heard of any protests by high-wage SF residents at their inability to procure the services they desire, so things seem to be ticking over. No ham-fisted government intervention necessary.
Your only problem here is if you think that successful people have some sort of obligation or self-interest to continually devolve income to support the less successful. But that's a new conversation.
The MTBF is typically much higher than regular HDDs, and their reliability is probably at the level described for Hitachi (can't give actual stats though, my experience is limited to hundreds not thousands)
Those drives aren't designed for HDD farms though. They are meant to be used in environments where a failure is a big problem and paying a lot more for a bit more reliability is worth it. Like that 1U server you got in a datacenter with 2 disks in RAID1.
If you have thousands of disks replacing is part of the daily routine, and isn't an issue at all (as numbers suggest in article/comments)
That isn't why you buy enterprise drives. Or, at least, I've spent several Porsches worth of money that I could reasonably have spent on Porsches on enterprise drives, and that isn't why I bought enterprise drives.
I buy all enterprise drives. Not because I can't handle replacing a disk; I live within walking distance of the coresite santa clara location where most of my servers are, and actually kinda enjoy that sort of thing. (Yes, yes, I'm sick. But what of it?)
I pay double for 'enterprise grade' drives because more often than the consumer-grade drives, they fail clean.
That's the thing... what does it mean to have a drive "fail?" The vast majority of my failures with consumer grade drives just /degrade/ rather than outright failing. They get shittier and shittier over time. And yes, with sufficient software you can detect this and automatically fail them, but I don't have that. the "enterprise sata" stuff? More often than not, the things actually fail before they degrade to the point where I notice them causing problems with other things.
I buy enterprise grade, not because they last longer, (In fact, I see no evidence that they do) but because they tend to work or fail, whereas consumer grade drives exist on a continuum between "working" and "failing"
(Of course, even the enterprise stuff isn't 100%... but it's much better.)
Well, nowadays I buy them because that's the only way you get a 5 year warranty; I only build systems with 5 year design lifetimes (even for the parents; saves a lot of hassle).
Although I have seen some evidence of consumer grade drives "failing dirty". E.g. in 2002 I tried a couple of 5 year warranty Seagate Barracudas in a new machine; it didn't take long for one of them to outright fail a 4K portion of the disk. I actually wrote a little C program to recover everything but that one bit (and it was a file I could then recover the missing data from), and switched back to SCSI enterprise drives for my main system drives and haven't looked back (granted, those are as fast as I can buy, and that means SCSI enterprise). And that includes a couple of machines I built for a non-profit that are exactly what datphp describes.
And, yeah, these best of the best drives do fail, at least I had at least one of the Seagate Cheeta 10K drives I bought back in 2002 completely fail, I think both eventually, the 2nd after 5 years had passed.
>I actually wrote a little C program to recover everything but that one bit (and it was a file I could then recover the missing data from),
'ddrescue' is a program I use in similar situations. (not to discourage you from writing your own; doing that sort of thing leads to a deeper understanding of what is going on.)
I was still stuck in Windows (Windows 2000), and it was quite a bit faster to write the program than find a solution on the net like that on a live CD, download it, etc. Having started on C in 1979 (sic) I knew it cold by then.
But, yeah, confirming exactly what was the problem was good, especially since it was extremely odd. All blocks readable except for those 8, although the drive knew it was in trouble.
It reminds me of problems others have reported, especially those using high level error checking file systems like ZFS, where the drive accidentally writes to the wrong location correct data correctly, so the internal CRC passes on reads. The firmware in drives is said to be getting to full OS complexity....
Yeah but as with many complains about PHP, how would you define the default behavior? I'm seeing so many people who expect PHP to always do stuff how they want, because of how easy it is to work with. I never read those complaints about super tricky C cases.
Modifying the content by default would be completely counter-intuitive, specially with a function that is used mostly in API and thus being encoded / decoded in different places and languages.
IMO content filtering is specific to the view where you output it, and should be done there. Any hazardous content should always go through a sanitize function when you echo it in the middle of HTML.
You're the reason PHP has a bad reputation. You have no idea what you're doing, and you use your mouth not only to breathe, but to spill hate on it too!
80% of your points can be answered by wrappers/helpers. How often do PHP developers have to walk through a user-generated string of multibyte cacarcters? Ok, didn't think so. And when you do you have all the required tools. 99% of string handling is simple copy, and the byte apporach is great at that.
A few points that stand out, and give an amusing idea of how you implement stuff:
"Unless you use a wrapper"
"What's the difference? I don't know, and I really can't be bothered to read"
"Try typing that three times in a row, I dare you"
"Oh yeah, and there are no less than three API"
"a real database where field lengths are defined in characters"
"makes autocompletion tricky" on native function...
PS:
- natsort() is intended for numbers
- ENT_QUOTES isn't required unless you use single quotes to encapsulate your outputs
- ugly code = using different function names.. ok
- PHP isn't helping Microsoft.. ok
- utf8_decode is a shortcut for iconv() using the 2 most common encodings, just FYI
