> Meanwhile I really want my email, messenger, or banking apps to be exactly the same every time I use them.
I know that's not the point you're making, but I agree with you, alas that's already not the case today, e.g. random device updates nobody asked for, or you log in to your banking website because you need to pay something right now and half the features are gone or different.
I feel the implication in the article is that Clegg believes it's impossible to be a wealthy man and also a victim? I mean yeah these people probably aren't victims. But simply saying they're wealthy is insufficient to prove that.
> I feel the implication in the article is that Clegg believes it's impossible to be a wealthy man and also a victim? ... But simply saying they're wealthy is insufficient to prove that.
You "feel" something and you demand Clegg to prove what you feel instead of you proving that Clegg is really implying what you feel. But he isn't trying to prove anything, in fact he accepts whiny wealthy men as fact, he just feels this to be an ugly combination:
>> Clegg: “In Silicon Valley, far from thinking they’re lucky, they think... they’re victims. I... can’t, understand this deeply unattractive combination of machismo and self-pity."
1) "it will just compile and run programs with incompatible version dependencies and then they crash at some point"
2) "Now a package 5 layers deep is unmaintained and is on an ancient dependency version, other stuff needs a newer version. Now what? Manually dig through dependencies and update versions?"
You can't solve both of these simultaneously.
If you want a library's dependences to be updated to versions other than the original library author wanted to use (e.g. because that library is unmaintained) then you're going to get those incompatibilities and crashes.
I think it's reasonable to be able to override dependencies (e.g. if something is unmaintained) but you have to accept there are going to be surprises and be prepared to solve them, which might be a bit painful, but necessary.
Yeah, you have to bump stuff and use packages that are actually compatible. Like Rust. Which does not do the insane things that Maven does, that the post author is presumably advocating for.
If you use two dependencies, and one requires Foo 1.2.3 and the other Foo 1.2.4 then 99% of the time including either version of Foo will work fine. (I was a Java developer and used Maven for about 10 years.)
For those times where that's not the case, you can look at the dependency tree to see which is included and why. You can then add a <dependency> override in your pom.xml file specifying the one you want.
It's not an "insane" algorithm. It gives you predictability. If you write something in your pom.xml that overrides whatever dependency your dependency requires, because you can update your pom.xml if you need to.
And because pom.xml is hand-written there are very few merge conflicts (as much as you'd normally find in source code), vs. a lock file where huge chunks change each time you change a dependency, and when it comes to a merge conflict you just have to delete the lot and redo it and hope nothing important has been changed.
And yet, that one manual override and an auto-generated lockfile require basically the same level of effort, and serve the same purpose.
Edit: actually, depending on the package manager, the auto generated lockfile takes less work than the single override, as they don't have the same issue maven does to require an override in the first place.
When you are building some app in an ecosystem not entirely managed by you, things like this are bound to happen, so there are always ways to solve this.
You use Foo1 in Project1 (= one pom.xml) and create Project2 (=second pom.xml) where you use Foo2 (but package it in such a way that Foo2 is not exported from Project2), and depending on the usecase create a thin wrapper which you can then use from Project1, as an absolute worst case.
True, but the lockfile is imposed at build time. Swapping out the version of a transitive dependency might build totally fine, but also might result is broken behaviour at runtime if the behaviour of the dependency changed.
Depending on the dependency, you can also use shadow versions right? Essentially including both versions, and providing each dependency with it's own desired version. I believe it's done with the maven shade plug-in
Never used it myself though, just read about it but never had an actual usecase
I'm not sure if that's an answer to your question, but there are at least companies today that do no allow their programmers to use GenAI e.g. OpenAI, including tools running locally.
You could (for now) work for such a company.
That doesn't mean they'll be around in the future, maybe they will get left behind. But the future is difficult to predict, and it's at least the case that such companies exist today.
Then again it might be difficult to identify such companies. I tried to find any public information that the company I'm thinking of doesn't use AI (large US company, 10k+ employees) and I couldn't. So you probably wouldn't know, before working there, that they don't allow AI usage. So maybe this advice isn't as actionable as I'd hoped.
IMHO, the rest of that sentence is "be too complex for some metric within some audience"
I can assure you that trying to reproduce kubernetes with a shitload of shell scripts, autoscaling groups, cloudwatch metrics, and hopes-and-prayers is too complex for my metric within the audience of people who know Kubernetes
Or too generic. A lot of the complexity if from trying to support all use cases. For each new feature there is a clear case of "we have X happy users, and Y people who would start using it if we just added Z". But repeat that often enough and the whole things becomes so complex and abstract that you lose those happy users.
The tools I've most enjoyed (including deployment tools) are those with a clear target group and vision, along with leadership that rejects anything that falls too far outside of it. Yes, it usually doesn't have all the features I want, but it also doesn't have a myriad of features I don't need
> It’s also possible for things to just be too complex.
I don't think so. The original problem that the likes of Kubernetes solves is still the same: setup a heterogeneous cluster of COTS hardware and random cloud VMs to run and automatically manage the deployment of services.
The problem, if there is any, is that some people adopt Kubernetes for something Kubernetes was not designed to do. For example, do you need to deploy and run a service in multiple regions? That's not the problem that Kubernetes solves. Do you want to autoscale your services? Kubernetes might support that, but there are far easier ways to do that.
So people start to complain about Kubernetes because they end up having to use it for simple applications such as running a single service in a single region from a single cloud provider. The problem is not Kubernetes, but the decision to use Kubernetes for an application where running a single app service would do the same job.
Then again in the keynote today Apple proudly said Vision Pro was used by "thousands" of companies. So it sounds like it isn't such a success (yet?) in the enterprise either.
It was very very clearly not aimed at or designed for the average consumer, it’s just that it turns out the people who are not average consumers still have living rooms.
> One of the main goals of this is to not have the russian gauge available in case russians attack
This doesn't seem like it can be a goal given
> maybe in 2032 we can start construction
I mean unless the plan is to assume Russia won't attack until e.g. 2040 when construction will be complete && Russia can't implement multi-gauge trains that Spain is already using now?
Even if Russia's conquest of Ukraine were to end tomorrow, they would take a few years to recover before mounting their next offensive. And Finland isn't first in line on their list of next invasion targets, that would be either Georgia, Moldova, or the Baltics.
And in any case, just as in computer security, a security posture does not need to be unassailable, it just needs to be expensive enough to deter the enemy. NATO countries (well, the ones that haven't already been compromised by Russia) will be happy to fund the gauge switch, as would the EU in general for the sake of greater economic integration. Meanwhile, it increases the costs on Russia and slows their advance. It's a win no matter what.
Given the disaster that is the Ukrainian invasion, this doesn't really hold true. As long as leadership is OK with a total logistical clusterfuck, you don't need to worry about "years to recover" for your next offensive. The next offensive starts today. You can figure out the details as you go.
>"Meanwhile, it increases the costs on Russia and slows their advance. It's a win no matter what."
Following logic it also increases your own costs and wastes money that could've been allocated to produce weapons and other more effective preventive measures.
Fortunately, a country can pursue many things simultaneously, which is often more generally effective than pursuing a single thing to the detriment of all others, thanks to diminishing returns.
Where did I say about single thing: "...weapons and other more effective preventive measures..."
Looking from the other angle - should Russia attack it'll trigger article 5. Russia can not win conventional war with NATO. It is just laughable. They're not that suicidal. And if they are it'll escalate to nuclear and then the railroad will be your last worry.
Russia can however win the US dithering, western Europe being scared of cruise missile strikes while their propagandists ask if it's worth dying for a few little towns.
Without the US Navy, NATO loses any war in the Baltic Sea. If Putin thinks the US won't respect Article 5, then he'll attack anyway. And if the US Navy is annihilated in a war against China, he'll attack anyway. Finland needs all the separation from Russia it can get.
Russia can't just attack anywhere it wants to. Putin is not Kim Il-sung, he can't count on any order to be blindly obeyed. It took years of propaganda, unfortunately armed with a couple of actually good points (mostly supplied by the neonazi nationalist wing in Ukraine, who wanted a war), before he could try actually invading. He had to walk a dangerous game with his own, in particular with his own neonazi supporter Prigozhin, who could easily have come up on top in their inevitable conflict.
He's absolutely not harmless, but neither should we allow ourselves to be distracted by phony countermeasures against the Russian threat, like this gauge shift thing clearly is in my opinion.
As you suggest, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was bolstered by Russian sympathizers in the east. Every country bordering Russia is incentivized to break free of any sort of alignment with Russia in order to reduce the threat of local insurgency which will aid Russia in its invasion. For example, the Baltic countries removing Russian from their list of official languages, in addition to decoupling from the Russian power grid. There are a lot of steps to be taken, and a lot of them will take decades. Fortunately, Russia's capacity to wage war measured against their number of potential targets means that it would take them decades to reconquer it all, assuming Europe steps up to fund the defense. Train gauge alignment is just one of many steps towards this end, and the sooner the better.
It was the case during the Soviet occupation and briefly during the transitional period, but otherwise - no, it wasn't. For example, in 1990, Latvia simply restored its 1922 constitution (still in effect today, although with some amendments) which enacted Latvian as the sole official language. This has also been the case with Lithuanian and Estonian constitutions, respectively.
The anti-Russian policies in the Baltics are dumb, they provide Putin with a good point to use in his propaganda, which is infinitely more useful to him than any railroad on foreign soil.
He's co-opting the red army's defeat of Nazi Germany for his own popularity purposes. Which is impressive, considering he's also disavowing communism. It would hardly have been possible, if it weren't for fringe (but not fringe enough) movements in Eastern Europe playing along with it. Not because they're pro-Russian, far from it, but because their old nationalist groups often were aligned with the nazis, and they want to rehabilitate them. Putin and these groups totally agree that the conflict should be framed as being between Russia and these groups.
> The anti-Russian policies in the Baltics are dumb, they provide Putin with a good point to use in his propaganda
This is dangerously naive. Propagandists like Putin don't need real grievances, they're happy to invent grievances and brainwash the population into believing them. In light of this fact, there's zero downside and nonzero upside to decouple from Russia (at least for any state which intends to remain independent) which makes it a no-brainer.
Said brainwashing can still be more or less effective depending on how much material it can build upon.
More importantly, though, it can only be effectively applied on Russian territory, while real grievances among minority Russian populations in other countries can be exploited into fifth-columnizing them.
What you're really saying here, is that Russians are fundamentally different people than you, because they fall for any dumb propaganda, whereas you don't.
Or maybe you accept that you are human too, vulnerable to the same thing, and maybe you are the brainwashed one, but you don't care?
Going down either of these roads ends you up with the neonazis in the long run (and yes, Russia has a lot of them too).
So no, it's not naive to point out the good points that feed the propaganda. What's naive is to think that dictators can manufacture good propaganda out of thin air anyway so it doesn't matter what "our side" is guilty of.
Putin is a gangster, not a cult leader. He's in it for himself, the people around him are in it for themselves. No one thinks he's selfless, least of all regular Russian people. It takes effort to keep something like that together. Unfortunately, he gets help from his foreign enemies.
> What you're really saying here, is that Russians are fundamentally different people than you, because they fall for any dumb propaganda, whereas you don't.
No, I don't read that at all. There's plenty of Russian propaganda that Westerners have fallen for hook, line, and sinker, chief among them the idea that all Russian speakers are actually Russian and want to be a part of the Russia.
The point is that the propagandists don't need to base their propaganda on truth. A salient historical example here is actually World War II: the Germans tried to provoke Poland into overreacting and causing a major incident in Danzig to justify their invasion of Poland. The Poles refused to play ball, so when the appointed hour came, the Germans made up some atrocity and used it as the basis of the declaration of war, faking the evidence early in the invasion. Given that Russia has already used a similar pretext regarding Russian speakers in Ukraine, it's not a surprise that the Baltics are nervous about Russia doing the exact some thing with regards to Russian speakers in their territories.
> No, I don't read that at all. There's plenty of Russian propaganda that Westerners have fallen for hook, line, and sinker, chief among them the idea that all Russian speakers are actually Russian and want to be a part of the Russia.
Oh yeah, other westerners, but not you. You take the foreign policy think tank line that Russians actually want to be balkanized. Just after saying that Putin has succeeded in brainwashing the population to go along with whatever he wants without need for excuses based on good points.
Given the ample reporting of Russian speakers in places like Odesa switching to speaking in Ukrainian as a result of the 2022 invasion to distance themselves from Russia, or the difficulty the Russian occupiers of Ukraine has had in finding people willing to work for them, or the fact that the current president of Ukraine is himself a Russian-speaking Ukrainian, or the fact that in the 1991 referendum, a majority of people in every Ukrainian oblast (including Crimea!) supported being a part of Ukraine rather than Russia, I don't think it's that hard to say what the general appetite of Russian-speaking Ukrainians becoming part of Russia is.
Or, to use an analogy with a different language, Putin's argument is akin to saying that a majority of Irishman want to be a part of England, because they speak English.
Don't confuse language for cultural identity.
(And, FWIW, I have fallen for this propaganda in the past; I've just been successfully educated since then as to why the simplistic linguistic map is fundamentally the wrong way to look at the conflict.)
But, similarly, don't confuse cultural identity with political one. That is really the crux of the issue here - self-identifying as Ukrainian or as Russian is very much a political question in Ukraine, and has been since their independence. This is also why you have this weird situation where several prominent Ukrainian military commanders and politicians have close direct relatives in Russia who are pro-war politicians there and who often were themselves born in Ukraine (or, conversely, the Ukrainian ones were born in Russia). So somebody may be Russian not just linguistically but culturally and ethnically as well, be born and raised in Russia, and still self-identify as Ukrainian today and speak the language solely as a marker of their chosen affiliation. And because it is a political identity in those cases, it can be very fluid - i.e. those very same people might be ones who have voted for Yanukovich 15 years ago precisely because he was seen as pro-Russian-language.
Ironically, this war will probably end up doing more to truly hammer out a single cohesive Ukrainian nation out of all the ethnic Russians in Ukraine than all the efforts of Ukrainian nationalists before it - assuming that Russia loses the war, that is.
I think this overstates the challenges, especially given the last 10+ years of despots doing things they shouldn't just be able to do. Waking up one day to find that the US has invaded Canada is now a non-negligible possibility.
I think they are up to the challenge of whipping up some BS casus belli and scaring would-be protesters into submission.
Like most such things, it's probably mostly symbolic, so politicians can say they're doing something in defiance of Russia (which is a very popular thing to do in Finland right now, or most of the west for that matter). I guess they'll back down on it when by 2032, everyone realizes it doesn't matter since wars will be fought with small autonomous drones and any railroad would be sabotaged in an instant.
What kind of ranges are you expecting from these small drones so logistics suddenly doesn’t matter? Even if something can hypothetically travel thousands of miles, designing disposable weapons with that kind of range has a real cost.
Sure, logistics matter. I'm sure Russian-gauge railroads in Finland would be mildly convenient for invading Sweden, provided you can first invade and utterly defeat Finland quickly enough that the railways survive.
But if Putin could do that (he can't), railway gauges would be the least of our worries.
As to railways surviving it’s relatively difficult to effectively destroy rail infrastructure. Making the call to cripple your internal infrastructure is tough especially in such a dire situation, it’s also a really large target. Taking out some strategic bridges is easier but most local issues can be quickly fixed when you talking million men armies.
I know that's not the point you're making, but I agree with you, alas that's already not the case today, e.g. random device updates nobody asked for, or you log in to your banking website because you need to pay something right now and half the features are gone or different.
reply