This paper seems to be neglecting to the effect of latency and packet loss. From my understanding, the biggest issue with TCP is the window sizing that gets cut every time a packet gets lost or arrives out of order, thus killing throughput. The latency makes that more likely to happen and makes the effect last longer.
This paper needs multiple latency simulations, some packet loss and latency jitter to have any value.
This is a bit of a misunderstanding. A single out of order packet will not cause a reduction; tcp uses three duplicate acks as a loss signal. So the packet must have been reordered to arrive after 3 later packets.
Latency does not increase the chances of out of order packet arrival. Out of order packet arrival is usually caused by multipath or the equivalent inside a router if packets are handled by different stream processors (or the equivalent). Most routers and networks are designed to keep packets within a flow together to avoid exactly this problem.
However, it is fair to say that traversing more links and routers probably increases the chance of out of order packet delivery, so there's a correlation in some way with latency, but it's not really about the latency itself - you can get the same thing in a data center network.
Because it's none of our business as customers. This oversubscription rate is a risk they calibrate on their side. Given the marketing material, if all customers decide to use more bandwidth, it up to the utility to upgrade their infra to match in a timely manner. This is the risk they took and competed on.
This is an option, not a fact. Many of us don't agree. After working on all 3 I feel AWS is, by far, the worst experience for tech people. My perspective is that it's only doing great for execs and PowerPoint engineers.
To be a professional engineer, or just engineer really, you need to maintain your license, be in good standing with the regulatory bodyz have professional insurance, etc. The regulatory body can impose fine, mandatory training or disbar you for any ethical or technical deficiency. It's not a one time certification as you seem to believe.
The common perception is something along the lines of "In Canada, it's illegal to call yourself an engineer unless you have a PE license, full stop." The quote from Professional Engineers Ontario seems to encourage this interpretation. But the statute they cite seems to be more specific than that.
Offence, use of term “professional engineer”, etc.
(2) Every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,
(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
[...]
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for the first offence to a fine of not more than $10,000 and for each subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $25,000.
I believe the hierarchy used here is meaningful. The use of "engineer" (as opposed to "professional engineer") is addressed in subparagraph (2)(a.1), under the paragraph (2)(a), which says that your job title or business name can't be "professional engineer" unless you are a professional engineer.
Paragraph (2)(a.1) extends this to say that your job title or business name can't use "engineer" in a way that will make people think you are a professional engineer when you really aren't. This is in the context of the parent paragraph about claiming to be a professional engineer. If it were prohibited wholesale to call yourself an "engineer" under any circumstances without holding a PE, I wouldn't expect that to appear in this form in the statutes.
In short, what the law really seems to say is that, without a PE license:
- You can't claim to be a Professional Engineer
- You can't claim to be an "engineer" and let people think it means you're a Professional Engineer
This focuses on making sure that when we rely on engineering plans, they have been examined and approved by someone who knows what they're doing -- not on making "engineer" a protected title that is illegal to use unless you have a license. This interpretation of the statute suggests that there is actually nothing illegal about the use of the word "engineer" in job titles in Canada, as long as it's not done in a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe it means "licensed professional engineer".
It says or abbreviation which I imagine would cover engineer. It's well established here that you call yourself doctor or use the Dr abbreviation either if are not an active member of the college of medicine.
I am somewhat familiar with all these rules since a trained engineer with a PhD, but I am not a active member of the professional engineer association. I also used be a have the work title of "principal architect". In reality I can't legally call myself (or really let others) doctor, engineer or architect. I must admit it's a bit challenging when dealing with multinational.
Yes, the term in question for me is only "engineer".
> (a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
So (a) tells us rather clearly that we can't present ourselves as John Doe, Professional Engineer, or call our business a Professional Engineering firm, or whatever.
> (a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
Here, (a.1) seems to add, specifically as a sub-paragraph to (a), that it's also prohibited to call yourself an "engineer", or "eng.", etc., if it will make people think you're a professional engineer.
According to Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (1), one of the canons of interpretation is that "Material within an indented subpart relates only to that subpart".
While (a.1) is not indented with whitespace (2), I believe the paragraph numbering is functionally equivalent.
Further, the Fundamental Principle #4, "Presumption Against Ineffectiveness" is of some interest: "A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document’s purpose should be favored". Of course, it would not obstruct the purpose of the statute to interpret it as prohibiting whatsoever the use of the title "engineer". I bring up this principle because it implies that purpose is relevant to interpretation. That's why I think it's significant that the overall purpose of this statute is apparently to prevent people from being mistaken about who is and isn't a licensed professional engineer.
So, if we take for example the matter of people calling themselves "software engineers": The phrase "professional engineer" or equivalent wasn't used, which would have been prohibited outright per (a). Now, for (a.1), is this use of the word "engineer" going to make a reasonable person believe that the SWE is a professional engineer who can sign off on plans of the sort that require licensure because people die if the plans are wrong? I don't think so, and as far as I can see, it is only in those circumstances that "engineer" by itself is a protected title. I suspect what happened is that people/companies largely opted to avoid trouble by avoiding the word entirely, leading to a common assumption that "engineer" per se is entirely off-limits unless you're a PE.
I am not sure it's fair to include Canada in the same basket. We don't use freedom degrees, we know that numbers should start with the most significant digits and I believe liability waivers have no value here as well.
4-20-10 (quatre vingt dix) is weird for non-French speakers, as "siedemdziesiat" is weird to non-Polish speakers, or any other word in a foreign language.
To us French this is a word like others, it's not like we are calculating in our heads. Belgians have "septante" which is more logical but they do not calculate either.
It can maybe be tough to explain what you were doing in those years you were actually working at a well-known heavily unionized business.
It sucks if you have to be allowed to just make up work experience, but the root of the problem is the power imbalance between employers and employees, and well, that's what's unions are trying to address.
Depends on what you consider a "fake experience". The guy in this case legitimately had 4 years of HVAC experience, but he falsely claimed it was at one particular (non-unionized) company when it was actually at two different (unionized) companies.
Ah, I see. In my opinion, this is OK, as otherwise a 4-year gap in a resume might telegraph a union affiliation and make people unhirable. The spirit of the law is that you're allowed to lie to hide union affiliation, so that's fine.
I would be against people making up experience, but replacing one company's name for another might be OK, if the companies are of roughly similar caliber (no saying you worked at Google when you were an IT for a shop).
Unions should be an inherent presence at every job. Any laws that help further their establishment so that business people who sell the labor of a single individual are able to organize beneficial business associations amongst themselves is a positive for the American workforce and the country.
I think this is unexpected. I expected that once created, my boot volume would have the same performance on the first boot than on the second. It's really not obvious that the volume is really empty and lazily loaded from S3. The proposed work around is also a bit silly: read all blocks one by one even tho maybe 1% of the block have something in them on a new VM. This is actually a revelation.
This paper needs multiple latency simulations, some packet loss and latency jitter to have any value.