Most consumer wifi routers I’ve used have a setting to prevent peer-to-peer traffic. Whether this still counts as being on the same subnet is kind of a philosophical question.
An IP subnet is just a block of addresses anyway. Any two addresses both are and are not in the same block, depending on how big of a block you choose.
I’ve heard people claiming that they can but I’ve never heard compelling evidence that they’re directly visualising 4D objects rather than 3D projections of them, or some symbolic representation (arrays of numbers etc.)
All I’ve been able to do is mentally tag parts of a shape as being at different “depths” (possibly with two parts at the same 3D location but tagged as having different “depths”). Which, yeah, I agree isn’t really visualizing a 4D shape. I think someone better at it than me might be able to use this to leverage one’s visual spatial intuition in a way that is a bit closer to what 4D visualization might be like if it were possible.
But I don’t think it is possible for us. At least, for strict senses of visualization. I suspect that the architecture of our brains doesn’t support it. This is rather speculative because I don’t know basically any neuroscience, but I wonder if the whole “the brain is largely a very wrinkled surface (though with several layers to this surface), and the retinas are also surfaces” may have something to do with this. A retina in a eye-4-ball would have a 3D boundary (I.e. hypersurface), and I imagine that the amount of information that it would take in if it had an at all similar angular resolution, would be too great for our visual cortex to be able to represent all of it.
Of course, our vision only really has the high resolution it seems to everywhere in the narrow region we’re directly looking at, but still.
So it is like 3D because you do not visualize the complete 3D models but only 2D projections of them. Or do you really visualize the back and inside of a vase at the same time?
If I visualise a 3D object then it’s in at least pseudo-3D (as in front surface with depth) but I can switch it to a kinda volumetric view. This might be thanks to years worth of 3D modeling and CAD which helped me map between first person and third person cameras and between solid and transparent, though. 4D doesn’t even make sense though, like I can do an animated 3D volume?
Oh, sure. What's normal for the bank sure isn't normal for most individuals. I see that someone misread my comment to the point of writing a presumably-angry message that got flagged (so I'm only guessing what it contained), so I wanted to clarify: that sure isn't the daily, or weekly, experience for most people. It's just the bank that sees such sums all the time.
And someone else correctly pointed out that there might indeed be extra scrutiny on such transactions, at a level you might not always see, e.g. when Notch suddenly started receiving tons of money from Minecraft sales, PayPal flagged the account for special attention. But then they figured out it was legitimate, and allowed the money to go through. Personally, having been on the receiving end of credit card fraud (which I caught early enough that the bank refunded me the two fraudulent transactions, a total of $300), I'm glad that "this looks funny" gets flagged. It causes me more inconvenience than it has saved me money: every time I try to buy airline tickets back home (I live and work overseas) it's a large enough transaction that it gets flagged, and I have to call the bank and say "Yes, that large purchase on (airline) is legit, please let it through next time when I try again". But it saves me from being on the hook for $2,500 if someone were to get hold of my CC number again.
They appear (I skimmed) to be investing in all any feasible ideas to capture CO2 from the air - this is a good thing.
The numbers are daunting and the returns are scant, but the effort is one that should be made.
The upside is I saw little sign of Gorgan LNG style Carbon Capture; where a massive source of CO2 greenwashes releasing 100 units of CO2 by stuffing 1 unit back in the hole it came from.
For every ton of CO2 pulled from the air is another ton that something else will emit. Once the emitting is lowered, pulling it out of the air might have a chance
That's more of the "Gorgan LNG style Carbon Capture" I noted above - that's "capture" in the sense of releasing massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere while extracting massive amounts of natural gas .. but "making up for it" by not letting quite all of it escape and pushing a bit back.
Dubious accounting trick at best .. not even working as it was sold on the box in practice.
Atmospheric CO2 already floating about appears to be what the air-mining crowd are targeting (albeit small scale so far).
Even if you’re driving a Prius and getting 50mpg, if you’re “driving all the time” you’re spending at least $100 a month in gas. There’s nowhere in the country where a water bill is $1000 a month unless you’re doing a lot of irrigation.
While it’s important to make this explicit, at what point do we just assume a high-reliability UPS is table stakes?
Of course, if you need SIL2 type reliability then you need to assume any given hardware component can spontaneously combust and become a total loss, at which point the data loss caused by a power cut is a rounding error.
> While it’s important to make this explicit, at what point do we just assume a high-reliability UPS is table stakes?
Several years after they become commercially available?
My experience with small UPSes is they tend to cook the batteries and you don't find out until they switch the load and the battery doesn't hold up.
Large facility UPSes tend to do better, but automatic transfer switches have a tendancy to fail ocassionally. If you're hosted in many locations, it's not unusual to have a couple ATS failures per decade.
All that said, unexpected power loss is certainly one reason that writes may be lost, but OSes crash too. Disk firmware can also crash, but if thst bricks the disk, writes in progress don't really matter. Sometimes cabling fails. Or you get a uncorrectable ECC error (which will typically cause an OS panic... unless you're running a very fancy OS, but if it's in dirty disk backed page, even a fancy OS wouldn't save you)
Plenty of applications don't need or want to pay the cost for full commit to disk, but calling something durable when it's not committed to disk is inaccurate.
And that's before we get into the whole thing where the OS and the disk like to return success when things haven't quite finished.
Not sure how you managed to do it but you got it completely backwards.
If someone demands that the database should use fsync and only respond with success once the write finished, it is not some arbitrarily high reliability demand that needs to be implemented using reliable hardware. In fact, the entire point of implementing the power loss protection in software is so that you don't need perfectly reliable hardware. The power loss event turns into a downtime event which is often completely acceptable.
The requirement to have infallible hardware only emerged because the software refused to do its job. Infallible hardware is not a requirement decided by the user, it's a requirement decided by the developer of TurboKV to intentionally restrict his software to exclusively operate in a reliable hardware environment.
The fact that the user specified durability of the KV store during power loss does not make the user obsessed over hardware reliability, the software shifted the burden onto the hardware and forced the user to deal with this mess.
I don't know how exactly TurboKV works so let's talk about a hypothetical software instead.
Let's say the software cannot survive a power loss event and just corrupts the database. If the user wants to operate the software, he is forced by the software to operate it in an infallible environment where power loss can never occur. Based on how the software was designed, power loss is a catastrophic event. The SIL2 type reliability you're talking about only makes sense in contexts with catastrophic events.
So how it went is that the user made a reasonable demand with bounded reliability: "please survive power loss with durable writes" and the author says, sure just run the software on a SIL2 type reliability hardware environment.
It's not the user who blew up the hardware requirements.
reply