No definitely not. Usually pipelines deploy over 1-2 week periods, and they don't deploy on Fridays/holidays/high-traffic periods like December.
Deployments start off very conservative, maybe 1-2 small regions on the first day of deployments. As you gain confidence, the pipeline deploys to more regions/bigger regions.
A pipeline that deploys to 22 regions over one week might go from 2 small regions on monday, 4 small/medium regions on tuesday, 8 medium/large regions on wednesday, 8 regions on thursday.
us-east-1 is usually going to be deployed to on the wednesday/thursday in this example, but that isn't always the case because sometimes deployments are accelerated for feature launches (especially around re:invent), or retried because of a failure.
There are best practice guides within Amazon that very closely detail how you should deploy, although it is up to the teams to follow them, which they usually do an okay job of.
I have a suspicion that AWS uses some regions as canaries. Because we control both ends of things, I have personally noted that certain AWS functions clearly break in Australia first.
When I worked there, there were few hard and fast rules. Every team had its own release processes, so there was a lot of variance. It has been a couple of years, so this may have changed.
Typically, a team would group their regions into batches and deploy their change to one batch at a time. Usually they follow a geometric progression, so the first batch has one region, the second batch has two regions, the third batch has four regions, and so on. This batching was performed for the sake of time; nobody wants to wait a month for a single change to finish rolling out.
One reason not to deploy to us-east-1 in the first batch is so you don't blow up your biggest region. The fewer customers you break, the better.
One reason not to deploy to us-east-1 in the last batch is that there are a lot of batches. If a problem is uncovered after deploying the last batch, then someone has to initiate rollbacks for every single region.
Some teams tried to compromise and put us-east-1 in one of the earlier batches.
> I do not understand why designers are so insistent on making tools so difficult and unpleasant to use.
Because they need something to pad their resume. In fact, most of the things that are wrong with software today are for the same reason.
Executives want to make bold changes, so the Start button must be "re-imagined." For the same reason, Product Managers "re-imagine" the menus that have been in place for years and Product Designers "re-imagine" the design language to remove all cues that a button clicks and a panel scrolls.
In my routine trips to the auto parts stores over the past 20 years, I have seen their throughput drop as more and more of these modern ideas seeped in. Their text menus had been the same for decades, with as many options for a next action as there were keys on the keyboard. If my intuition is correct, they were remote sessions to a server/mainframe. How about that for keeping the computation close to the data. Now that has all been replaced with a single button and a cursor.
I'm not a die-hard CLI user by any stretch, but I understand the impulse after watching usability circle the drain year after year. There's a healthy middle somewhere and I am hoping to find it.
How are the complicit media organized? Is there a secret WhatsApp thread going on between the hundreds of media organizations? Who runs the organization? How do they keep it a secret?
It existed, allowed the media to work together on how to represent certain issues, it stopped existing and there is a new version that replaced it? What did I miss?
I assume you are talking about Klein's statement regarding Tucker?
She was correct if you don't consider children as a vector for COVID-19 transmission to parents and grandparents. Hundreds of thousands more people would have died if schools weren't shutdown before the vaccine was available.
The guidance from the CDC has been relatively clear: closures depend on the state of the local hospital system and transmission rates. Closures that avoid overwhelming health systems protect medical staff, increase COVID survival rates, and allow people who need non-COVID treatment for diseases like cancer to have access. It has been that way since the beginning of COVID, and is part of the standard response for every pandemic in modern history.
The only person who has been bringing up racism is you. If you want to participate in a culture war by complaining about culture wars, go right ahead. If you want to discuss pandemic response, please join the conversation. Better yet, join the campaign to get people vaccinated. It will save lives and we can re-open more quickly.
> The only person who has been bringing up racism is you.
The article directly addresses her being called racist for considering opening the schools. There are multiple paragraphs addressing this in the article.
> If you want to participate...
> If you want to discuss pandemic response
> Better yet, join the campaign to get people vaccinated
Thanks for telling me what I should do, without knowing what I've been doing.
Every public figure has been called names. It comes with the territory and usually it's not worth mentioning. It's part of the deal and shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has decided to step into the public square. Some people fixate on that so they can get their 15 seconds of fame in the culture war game, others return the focus to the cause they are fighting for.
> Thanks for telling me what I should do, without knowing what I've been doing.
I can't read your mind. So far it's all emotions and no content, so hopefully you have been doing something more than that.
I think there was almost a good system in place: a variety of ad-supported sites that professionally reviewed new products, and a variety of ad-supported forums where you could get the advice of other people. Manufacturers win in both cases if they can make a good product that survives the professional review and doesn't fall apart or immediately break so the forums give it a pass.
The problem is tracking and dependence on ad networks. Corporations doggedly chasing the bottom line don't want to spend the time or the money to pick and choose specific forums and sites to advertise. They want to pretend to automate that process. Their laziness not only killed the old networks and communities around various product segments, but helped start the "listicle" de-evolution that has decreased content quality across the entire internet.
I used to be able to type in "product_name review" and get some useful, well-known sites. Now I get recycled garbage content, and I have to check all of those sites individually or restrict the domain in the search. It's ridiculous.
Your comment reminded me of the old AdSense model where the advertiser (Google in this case) would look at the content of the page the ad was on and decide what ad to display as a result. In a way, this is just like magazine advertising where the seller can pick a publication that they think will cater to buyers. Maybe they can even pick a specific article.
Personally, this is the model I long for again. If I’m looking at articles about bike maintenance, I’m getting ads for bike tools and supplies. Instead, I’m getting ads for USB power cords because I just purchased a new one to replace the one my dog chewed.
> As far as I can tell, you just made that up. Literally no Google hits
NAFTA was passed in the very early days of the internet. Here's a great quote about it from former presidential candidate Ross Perot via wikipedia:
"We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car—have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. ... when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals."
Perot was from Texas, and mocked by corporate media as a clueless hillbilly for suggesting that NAFTA would be a bad deal for Americans. It was one of the few issues Noam Chomsky and Rush Limbaugh and all the major unions agreed on. Trump, whether sincere or not, uses it as one of his main talking points because it is absolutely true. Selling out our capacity to manufacture our own goods has been a terrible choice for Americans. We can't make the things our civilization needs to function. We have hollowed out entire metro areas and replaced steady paychecks and fairly cohesive social units with "gig" work and broken families.
That's a long way of saying their memory is accurate, but I think it's a critical moment to understand in modern US history. NAFTA was a big fucking deal, and the owners of corporate media spared no one to make sure it would get passed. They understood the power it would give them in terms of wealth accumulation and bargaining power to beat down unions and wages. Everyone thought Clinton wouldn't capitulate since it was unpopular with Democrats, but Clinton was attracted to and further corrupted by Wall St power and depended on them for guidance.
For a lot of Americans, NAFTA was the beginning of the end of their community. They are still pissed off about it, and that's the reason the criticism of the Clintons can turn vile in certain circles. It's not entirely unearned. I don't like the Clintons, though I voted for her as the lesser of two evils in 2016.
>>> Corporate media claims... remember this one? "NAFTA and China WTO will raise the standard of living for all Americans!"
>> As far as I can tell, you just made that up. Literally no Google hits
> NAFTA was passed in the very early days of the internet. Here's a great quote about it from former presidential candidate Ross Perot via wikipedia:
I'm well aware. What I meant was the headline he "quoted" was almost certainly made up (I mean "NAFTA and China WTO"? There was a bit of a time gap between those things). Obviously there were advocates who made grand predictions in favor of free trade in general, and advocates who said that was all BS (and for the record the latter have been proven to be far more correct). The issue I have is with the sloppy thinking and sloppy argumentation in the GGP.
A lot of people seem to lazily think of the media as a unitary agent, and think that agent's intentions are revieled in some random cherrypicked op-eds they read sometime that pissed them off. That's almost as big of a pet peeve of mine as libertarianism.
That's not to say it can't be taken by a zeitgeist or its participants don't show bias, but it's kind of an important thing that ought to be thought about more carefully and less conspiratorially.
> Selling out our capacity to manufacture our own goods has been a terrible choice for Americans. We can't make the things our civilization needs to function. We have hollowed out entire metro areas and replaced steady paychecks and fairly cohesive social units with "gig" work and broken families.
I have Brother printer, full can of paint and sensor saying that is empty, I cannot do anything with it, and that is just one in long list of issues I had with printer...
Because people in debt are easier to control. It's the same reason we are the only nation that does not provide healthcare as a right. Millions of people would quit tomorrow if they were sure their kids would have access to healthcare.
For reference, visit any nation with these rights. You will find more small businesses, fewer franchised chains, and happier people.
People might be happier but there are not more small businesses. But I do agree that health insurance is a big part of it. Less since the ACA passed though since you can get health insurance at any income level now.
According to Leonard Susskind[1], fine tuning is a compelling argument by itself[2], and the strongest case is the cosmological constant.[3] In a nutshell it is a sort of repelling force first proposed by Einstein to create a workable model for a static universe who later regretted it as one of the biggest mistakes in his career. However, the theory is now back with Nobel prize winning research showing that expansion is accelerating, which would require a positive number. It could explain a large portion of "dark matter."
When expressed in one way, it is 10^-122 "units of the square Planck length". I'm not smart enough to completely understand it, but it is (according to physicists) an incredibly precise ingredient in the various properties of physics that make our Universe possible. Any larger or smaller and the model falls apart. If it is an accident, that is one hell of a lottery ticket.
