So it was working properly and now it's not? Sounds like a classic case of deploying to production before testing and verification. Edsby is taking responsibility, so it seems reasonable to think that they are not adhering to one of the fundamental rules for software development and deployment. What other shortcuts are they taking. No test suites? Not encrypted at rest? Not encrypted in transit? No authorization and authentication process? No access logs? This could well be the tip of the iceberg and should trigger an investigation that includes a third party aaudit of policies and procedures. At their expense, of course.
The only way this can come to a meaningful conclusion is for two things to happen.
First, steps should be taken now to lock in who is going to have to pay if found guilty. No passing the buck. No transfer of assets. No "bankruptcies".
Second, anyone found guilty must be held financially liable for any necessary remediation. Then anyone left standing must forfeit any land they own in the greenbelt. Ideally, not just the specifically contested properties, but everything.
We did that a little over a decade ago. One thing to watch out for is that it could be a one way trip. We're now retired. The lower wages mean that the retirement income is also lower. That would be fine, except that now we're looking at what the future holds for health care and driving. We're fine as long as we can stay here, but anything that forces us back to the city means absolute destitution.
Not your usual teaser, but still a teaser. "Look at all this techno-marketing. It shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks. By then we'll have some actual code to look at and toys to play with."
In fairness, they are providing what looks like a decent overview of their underlying system (Rama) and how they used it to create their mastodon instance.
But I guess it worked :) I bookmarked their page and will check in from time to time. Maybe their toy (prototyping) system will be enough to run a personal instance...
Yes, those two statements conflict as written. I think the first statement is in error. The federal regulations apply to all workplaces not just those not governed provincially. The provinces (and unions, and other agreements) can improve upon them. I think that federally regulated businesses have the option to follow the regulations of the province in which they operate, but, in my experience, few do.
What I find frustrating is that Saskatchewan funded the development of some world class energy efficient housing back in, I think, the 1980s, and then did nothing about making it standard.
It's been a long time, but IIRC, federal sets the minimum standards and provinces can improve upon them as they see fit.
For example, federal standards call for a minimum of 2 weeks paid vacation (technically, the actual pay is 1/26 annual earnings, including overtime pay). Some provinces, like Alberta, go with that. Others, like Saskatchewan, make that 3 weeks (3/52 annual pay, including OT).
If you are in a federally regulated industry, the employer is not required (but has the option?) to follow the provincial standards of the province you're employed in.
And, of course, employment agreements and union contracts can further improve upon either.
Quantum computing is like fusion power. There are so many complicated little details that we discover as we go and that have to be exactly right that success at a meaningful scale is always just over the horizon.
I only read about this stuff, so I might be completely wrong and the analogy might actually be stupid. :)
That's true, it is, but you need to check your definitions. A pandemic is an emergency when something dangerous and new spreads rapidly, threatening to overwhelm health care systems. Now that we have vaccines, treatments, and are working on health care capacity, the emergency is over.
That doesn't mean the danger has passed or that our "death from disease" rate has fallen to pre-COVID levels. In fact, it looks like the new normal will be to have about twice as many COVID deaths each year as flu deaths. All of those COVID deaths are new deaths that would not have occurred in the absence of COVID.
That death rate will continue until the vulnerable populations have been nearly wiped out, forever changing our demographics and life expectancy. By that time, we'll start seeing whether long COVID is as disastrous as it looks like it might be. If it goes the way many reasonable people think, we'll still need all the long term care programs that aren't being used by the elderly and infirm who got wiped out by the immediate effects of COVID infection, because we'll have a new class of infirmity requiring care.
On the plus side, all those 50- and 60-year old people forced out of the workforce will open up a lot of good jobs and promotions for the youth. On the downside, it'll still be demographically difficult, with too many in care, not enough working.
So, yeah, pandemic is over, but the endemic isn't going to be all that much fun for millions of people.
Less serious than what? If my aged brain remembers correctly, Omicron severity is comparable to the original strain, only making it less serious than Delta. As I understand it, the primary factor in reduced severity was that vaccines were available and most people got the vaccine.
Are these the same doctors who insist on taking a wait and see approach to Paxlovid? If so, I'm not sure they should even be allowed to call themselves doctors.
I believe that the article was making the point that it's kind of strange to call it a crisis when the system is working as it has always worked. Instead of trying yet another way to keep the system working, maybe it's time to redesign the system.
I had a very strange conversation a couple of years ago. It seems that some people think that math is used only as a tool to control the population or something.
We were talking about something that most people would consider pretty innocuous, catch and release fishing. I mentioned that I had recently read an article that claimed that mortality among released fish was still high enough that approximately every second released fish should be counted against your limit because of the percentage of released fish that die of catch-related causes.
That lit the other guy's hair on fire. "That's math! You can't seriously think that math is real? It's all made up!" (Or words to that effect. Mouth frothing removed to protect the innocent.)
Over the course of the rest of the conversation, I "learned" that math was invented as a tool of oppression. Science uses math to create fake knowledge. Our senses are the only true sources of knowledge.
So it was working properly and now it's not? Sounds like a classic case of deploying to production before testing and verification. Edsby is taking responsibility, so it seems reasonable to think that they are not adhering to one of the fundamental rules for software development and deployment. What other shortcuts are they taking. No test suites? Not encrypted at rest? Not encrypted in transit? No authorization and authentication process? No access logs? This could well be the tip of the iceberg and should trigger an investigation that includes a third party aaudit of policies and procedures. At their expense, of course.