Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world.
A world like now never existed before: Millions of people living in cities were they are not able at all to live in nature or can't afford to move away or into the cities.
A world with high speed communication.
A world with unlimited possibilities.
A world were you grew up without ever having to learn were your water comes from and how your food is made.
The world doesn't need most of us, this was never the case in the past. I'm a smart person, i'm not needed because there are still enough even smarter people.
And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold.
And in the past, if you had any mental illness, you just might have been killed or put in shackles.
> Thats a very hard simplification in a complex modern world.
Although I think the issues are complex, I disagree that the complexity of the modern world itself leads to this.
One of the core features of modernization has to do with the substitution of local communities with regional and global institutions. That alone changed many things.
It also does not help that our civilization keeps making this mistake: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/07/26/a-big-little-idea-call... ... that is, the effort by modern institutions to make sense of the world in a legible way leads to imposing simplification on the world. The world was already complex, even in pre-modern times.
> The world doesn't need most of us, this was never the case in the past. I'm a smart person, i'm not needed because there are still enough even smarter people.
If we take a person's worth as a _quantity_, sure. We can reduce every person into a set of stats, similar to D&D character sheets, and every person fits into roles based upon those stats. Those stats make things more legible.
Each person, however, has a _quality_, and it is here one's unique purpose and contribution can be discovered. I didn't learn this from ikigai specifically; as one of the comments talked about, some form of this was widely known in pre-modernized cultures. Carol Sanford has been writing, talking, and practicing this as applied to the modern world for decades.
There's also the work of Christopher Alexander. His writings and work convinced me that modernity did not have to be designed this way.
I don't think that Oioioioiio was saying that each person doesn't have intrinsic worth (quality, as you put it), more like that each of us has such a small piece of the puzzle now. In the past if you lost a community member who had critical knowledge and skills it would endanger the survival of the community. Now there aren't a lot of communities where that would be the case.
I wasn't talking about intrinsic worth at all. That kind of framing is still looking at things in terms of quantity rather than quality. I'm talking about the difference in the very worldview and paradigm. I am certainly not just talking about the material production someone can contribute.
The unique contribution someone can make isn't necessarily about the survival of the community. When I say unique, it means once that person has passed, there will never be again that particular contribution -- at the very minimum, the environment, relationship, and moment is unique, as is the person. As such, the community also grows and changes over time, a living system as much as the individual people within the community are themselves living systems.
I wasn't talking about a contribution from just existing. I'm talking about bringing the inner purpose seeded deep in oneself and lining it up with the outer world.
So why were people considering these questions so long ago? It s not the modern world that is the only problem.
> And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived.
Lots of people have. Not everyone was perfect, but it was an aspiration, and there are whole traditions of monasticism and other service based on it. It is no accident that the word organisations that help others is derived from a Christian theological term, charity.
> The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold.
The dark ages were not dark.
Art is one of the things that contribute to the community, and its creation leads the artist to fulfilment. Public art (which is what religious art usually is) is the opposite of hoarding private art.
> A world with unlimited possibilities.
Very few people have access "unlimited possibilities". Financial constraints, legal constraints, personal constraints..
'Charity' or helping others exists in all other cultures too. Thats not inherentliy christian.
Nonetheless, ikigai is more than just what christians wanted. Ikigai means different things for different people and the zeitgeist and your cirumstances are having a big part in it.
Dark ages were dark in sense of we have not that many records of it, there were little change.
'Art' was stuck and pressured from church and others. Art became art after all the revolutionary ideas and probably achieved the proper unlimitness of art today.
> And regarding your quote of the Christians: They don't live it either or never lived. The dark ages produced a lot of christian focused 'art' full of gold.
There have always been Christians who at least tried to live it. They're in the minority and they weren't and aren't the ones you hear much about (or from) but that's kind of the point.
The world has never needed us, in my opinion. Other human beings may find you useful, love you, whatever, and you may find some kind justification for your own existence, but the world itself has never cared about people.
Are you running Rancher with rke2? I checked like 9 month ago and gave up again on rancher for managing my rke2 setup as it still had too many features missing / was not really usable
We have been running RKE2 for a few years now never had any major issues or anything missing that wasn't possible to add with a helm chart. The only thing we changed with the most recent cluster is disabled the built-in CNI/kube-proxy and installed cillium instead, since calico very occasionally gave kube-proxy issues.
I think autoscaling is a issue on k8s. The smart autoscalers are written by google or azure for their own services and as far as i know, neither open source nor available in k8s.
There should be a k8s metric of 'cluster utilization'/'packing metric' the autoscaler from k8s should reschedule pods but rescheduling only exists for node drain, Priority and resource issues but not for packing a cluster.
You can only do this with Deschedule, which is not part of the k8s distri itself...
Thats it about my generic k8s rant (i do love k8s nonetheless).
Whats missing is an annotation on the specs to clarify how aggressive an autoscaler can handle certain pods (like do not move this stateful workload ever, reschedule this type of pod at night or look at this metric to see when its less active).
From an algorithm standpoint, its probably the same issue as java has with old and young generation: there are plenty of stable pods, which just need to run always. The base load, easy to pack, easy to keep aligned, seldom repackaking needed. Than you have the young generation: unclear how long the workload is required. Might mean that you have a big node running nearly empthy for an additional x hours just for the pod to finish its task or for the load to scale down again. If you know more about the type of workload, you could decide to spin up a big node or a lot more smaller nodes from a number of node pools. If you know that this job runs for 20 hours but is gone after, put it on a small node.
You could also do a strategy (depending on the cluster size) to only have one big node between 1-99% and make sure that all other nodes are always packed.
The project itself is tbh. shitty in describing how it works. I was neither able to read in the README or in the linked blogpost HOW they are doing it. The key information is missing. What algorithm does it use to utilize it?
The problem, I suspect is that different places have different needs from a “packing metric” and a scheduler, so there’s almost certainly no one-size-fits-all solution. The big players probably have custom schedulers that are capable of doing all the things we wish the standard K8s scheduler could do (de-scheduling, reevaluating existing pods, purgatory pools, etc) but nobody has the spare time and resources to do. Different places I suspect also want different things from a “packing metric”. I love the idea, but as a counter argument, one previous product my day job had ran customer workloads. These had extremely well-defined min and max resources, and we were primarily interested in packing as many onto a node as we possibly could. Conversely our current product has radically different needs for ideal packing: minimal nodes such that certain critical workloads have the space to expand as needed.
Absolutlty and its not an easy problem thats why i would like to see it as a core component of k8s and not implemented in random opensource projects.
The decision or packing algorithm could be architectured to be more extensable perhaps or finetuned but the core should be there and i do miss specs which would tell any autoscaler how to act/interact with different pods.
I would also love to see an autoscaler simulator.
Its a hard problem at the heart of k8s which gets fully ignored.
I'm pretty sure cluster-autoscaler evicts pods if he decides that this particular node could be removed. I saw that in my cluster and had to apply annotation to some pods to prevent that. So it does packing to some extent.
I'm using managed kubernetes, but from a relatively small provider and I doubt they did any custom coding for their autoscaler.
I agree that it could do more. Sometimes I have to manually juggle pods around to remove one node, if scheduler did bad job.
I'm pretty sure your provider uses some autoscaler from one of the projects.
It has to know how to schedule new nodes which is provider dependend.
But thats my critisism: I believe that the autoscaler should be a k8s core component and not a 'select whatever opensource project you like based on no evidence OR if you are lucky based on experience someone else made over the years with all the choices out there'.
But as you write it yourself: You still need to do something manually and i bet you don't have that much control over telling the autoscaler to act differently depending on the pods.
They do this based on sematics with data which doesn't has the data. You can get more information out of pixelated data if you know what the semantics are.
The search space is much much smaller if you only optimize for bloodcells than for everything. If this adds a chance of seeing things which you couldn't do before, it adds value.
It could mean doing a cheap analysis with low res and doing a high res and much more expensive one when you detect something. Like being in a rural area and traveling to the big city after you found something.
Overall the chances are that more people get help not less
Alone how many internal ML things nvidia builds helps them tremendesly to understand the market (what does the market need).
And they use their inventions themselves.
'only has a few' = 'has a handful easy to list but with huge implications which are not easily matched by amd or intel right now'