I clearly don't know you or your specific situation, so take this with appropriate caution.
It sounds to me like there is much in your life you cannot control. That sucks. Sorry for that.
But it seems like this specific thing is something you feel you can control, and so you are investing an excess of effort in it.
Perhaps consider if going down this road is ultimately helpful to you, or to your son. Are there other places to spend your energy which would be more beneficial?
I'd also suggest that your endeavor here is fruitless. Ultimately showing you don't buy alcohol does not equate to proving your sobriety. There are too many ways to source, or even make, your own. Plus drunks are notorious liars, so pursuing this matter obsessively hurts rather than helps your case.
Obviously formally note your objection to the report. But then, if you can, move on. And I hope that the new support is helping you avoid some of the conditions that lead up to this event in the first place.
>But it seems like this specific thing is something you feel you can control, and so you are investing an excess of effort in it.
maybe. I think it's more that there is a lot of emotional stuff involved here. In Denmark, many people drink A LOT and that's their right, I don't much care for it but hey they like it they should be allowed to do it. That's on the surface, but down below drunkenness makes me somewhat annoyed.
So on the emotional, knee-jerk level it strikes me as extremely unfair to be accused of drunkenness by a bunch of drunks, even though on the surface I feel well it is ok with their drinking. If you see my point.
Aside from that I have to still meet these people every day I
Of course it might just be my Danishness coming through, I remember reading one of those "what nations think of other nations" funny articles on the internet about 2006 and it said the what other people thought of Danes was "really nice wonderful people until they think something is unfair at which point they become raving lunatics" and I thought, well that hits pretty close to home.
The child protective services already said they don't think I drink, but I still feel the school is unfair, insulting, and out of line. Why would they stop their behavior unless they get fought? Sure it's not to my benefit specifically to fight, but it sure is to their benefit that I don't.
>Plus drunks are notorious liars
My experience with my alcoholic parents was not that they would claim not to drink, just that they would claim not to have drank that day, or just to have had one beer when they had a dozen, or claim that they could handle it.
>Ultimately showing you don't buy alcohol does not equate to proving your sobriety.
Sure but in legal situations it is generally given that the preponderance of the evidence and its narrative cohesiveness leads to the conclusion, I have a doctor's report I don't drink, people's affidavits I don't drink, child protective services saw no evidence of drinking at my house, convenience store workers confirm I don't buy alcohol from them, so showing by purchase history across all bank transactions I don't buy alcohol is one more corroborating bit of evidence.
No court would feel "yeah but he could be brewing his own" as a valid argument given all the other evidence contra drinking.
To be honest, I'm not sure I even understand what the term "Open web" is supposed to mean?
Does it mean that each individual and company is hosting their stuff on their own physical hardware? Is it OK to use say AWS?
Does it mean that Facebook is the Open Web as long as you work at Facebook? But it's not if you don't?
Is any site with a login "not the open web"? So if I'm hosting on my own metal, paid for by paying subscribers, then I'm not Open Web?
To your point, I think no one cares because the term is so meaningless that it's irrelevant. Actual real people aren't interested in some technical distinction which is completely unrelated to their goals for being on the web in the first place.
It seems to me that the whole concept of "Open web" is so poorly defined, and the reasons for caring so obscure, that it pretty much never comes up anyway. Joe Public doesn't care because there's no reason to care, and he doesn't even know it's "a thing".
I know indie web camp has a thing against hosting services and probably the small web people would also say blogspot and wordpress and wix are too corpo.
So imho drawing the distinction at not requiring payment/login works as an open web definition. And if self-hosting is a requirement for some people, there are other terms to use.
Youtube, Substack, Medium and the like are open-ish. They're far more of a heavyweight platform than a web host or publishing tool. They could become walled with the flip of a switch. And they can be ad-walled which is testing the limits of openness.
If I go to Wix, Substack, Medium and I'm tracked with cookies, sent analytics to Google, a popup begging to allow notifications, a subscription—not "open".
I feel like you're describing pretty much every industry ever.
You could be talking about food, or insurance or cars or planes or health or (dare I say it?) politics.
Of course there are well understood commercial reasons for industries consolidating. Primarily because consumers prefer it.
But while your post is good on rhetoric, it still lacks the concrete definition I seek. Specifically what hardware, OS, VM software, site-creation tools, subscription options, advertising networks, payment processors, and so on must I use to reach "Open web" status?
You're describing a world, which is a fair desire. But when I go to the local bakery to pitch an online presence, what exactly am I pitching, and how does this pitch serve the goals of that bakery?
I get the concept of this at a principle level. But how does it play out for you? I mean, to what extent do you succumb to the monoculture because while principles are good, you live in the real world?
So, like, what phone OS do you use? There's not much choice but did you choose Android over iOS because it's more open? Or did you go the whole way and use PalmOS or Symbian? Do you pick airlines based on what planes they fly? Do you choose Bing over Google?
I say this not to judge but rather to highlight the wide gap between principle and reality. We live in a real world, and the world consolidates behind a small number of providers because that has proven to be a beneficial strategy. (And yes, those providers can then abuse us.)
But I don't want to choose between 20 political parties, or 10 credit card processors or have to build apps for 15 phone OS's.
The sadness of losing the early days of choice and wildness are not limited to the web. Before that we lost the 20 brands of PC (all with custom OS) that we had in the 80s. Every new industry goes through this process, and every generation misses the wild heady days of its youth.
I don't have a smart phone or a mobile phone .. and yes, I do stay in touch with a good many people via land lines, email, some encrypted apps, radio and IRL face to face conversation.
I pick aircraft for their stability at near ground level flight, Cresco STOL's for example, and or ability to land on water, have high wings, mostly twin props, etc. Quite fond of Robinson R22 and Cabri G2 helicopters.
Typically elections here have 10 or so parties, three or four major parties, several minor single issue parties, and 10 or so independants in many districts. It's a preferential ranked voting system that allows you to 1, 2, 3 your main interests and tail off there if that's all you care to do.
I still largely use paper maps (despite having processed a great deal of digital GIS data into digital mapping pipelines).
So, yeah - we're happy being off to the side and not part of the great urban monoculture.
Props to you, you're further along that track than I am. Running a business has been one of main obstacles to cutting more of these ties. But it's getting there.
Props to my father, really - he's still kicking along, born in 1935, and fairly adept at living in places that lack any modern urban infrastructure.
Although, TBH, he's fallen prey to the clutches of the iPhone (sans any account stuff and pretty much limited to phone calls, text messages, and logging his daily walks).
I am working with smart phones for other people, they're more and more integrated with tractors, drones, boom sprays, ag equipment .. but many people are mindful of routing data and control through { cloud } which often means the US and are still attached to ways of working that can still work when { stuff breaks }, like internet connections, US clouds.
Fuel and fertilizer is a big issue ATM .. there are a lot of people all wanting to seed seperate 4,000 Ha farm blocks ATM - and that ability to do or not do so will have a rolling impact about the world in a few months.
I've been telling everybody around me to prepare for a massive price increase in various must-haves because I don't see how we're going to avoid that.
Fertilizer and fuel are a massive problem and once reserves run out (and we're not that far from that depending on where you live, in some places we're already there) the problems will multiply very rapidly. Trump is the biggest idiot that ever sat in a seat of power and the whole world (but of course, as always, the poorer parts first) will end up paying the price, and if the harvest is bad quite possibly the ultimate one.
( Yes, I realise that'd entail the kind of hard physical long hour labour my father grew up with .. but the means are there and the kids and grandkids are all pretty fit )
> Do you pick airlines based on what planes they fly?
I stopped flying entirely.
> Do you choose Bing over Google?
Still using Google but working very hard on moving away from it.
Yes, I too live in the real world and I'm a really annoying customer for banks, insurance companies and my government by insisting they serve me without bending over and adopting some eco-system that I do not subscribe to. I have a need to interact with my bank, my government, my insurance company and my kids schools and I point blank refuse to be sucked into any of their app driven eco systems.
I applaud your dedication to not succumbing to the appification of everything.
Unfortunately you are an outlier and society is not built for outliers.
Equally, unfortunately, the opinion of outliers does not really help the argument for a more open web. Yes there's some small number of people on mastodon but telling my hairdresser to not use Facebook is not terribly useful to her.
As someone outside the US I certainly feel this way.
The underlying point is that the American public voted for this. They saw his first term, a million people dead from covid, and thought to themselves "I want more of that guy". And if they can elect this person, what might the next one look like?
In one short year every country on earth has put the US in the "unreliable trade partner" box. (Even Canada. Canada!). That damage will last for decades. The big winner here? China. They're hoovering up goodwill all over the place.
Killing USAid not only killed a major purchaser of US farm surplus, it woke up a lot of grass-roots agencies to the need to diversify funding. Lots of soft-influence lost overnight, and it's not easily coming back.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "guilty" - that suggests some wrong doing.
However I agree with your premise - trying to remove abstaining voters from the math is incorrect. Abstainers are explicitly making their view known.
That view is "I don't care, but are equally good or bad". (Which in turn demonstrates a profound ignorance of what's going on - and frankly folk that unconcerned should probably not pick a side.)
I believe it's fair to say "America voted for this". America is a democracy and the voters spoke. Of course it's not unanimous but majority rules.
And it's not like his campaign was disingenuous. The man was on display, and most of the things he's done were signaled clearly in the campaign. (He's long been against foreign wars, so the Iran debacle seems out of character, but then again it's in line with his dictator instincts, and he desperately needs a distraction from the Epstein files.)
You're not wrong, it has always been true, but actually internalizing it as you grow older is hard, and rare.
It is very difficult to let go of some hard-earned experience and acknowledge that it's no longer much of a factor.
There are lots of examples, but the one that springs to mind is download file size. 30 years ago that was critical. Today, meh, 10 megs or 20 megs doesn't matter.
No clearly (before all us old folks have a heart attack), yes size still matters to a point. But in truth that point is waaaay higher than we'd like to admit.
And of course this is not limited to tech. It applies to every industry. My dad bemoans the fact that he can't tinker on his car the way he did in my youth.
The real secret is not in knowing the summary of the post, the really hard part is in figuring out what still applies and what is obsolete.
I've worked in "co-op adjacent" styles all my life. We'd typically have 3 or 4 folk as owners, but with additional employees.
The key restriction I see is the difficulties in large-group decision making. 4, or 3 seems to work well, but more than that it seems to flounder.
Every decision comes with upsides and downsides. So risks have to be taken, but in large groups the most common option is "status quo". You see this play out all the time in large companies with big boards and deep management all the time. It ends up stagnating because there's always the "safe" option which means trailing behind.
Of course it can work. But it's not common.
In a truly cooperative everyone gets a say. And most people are risk adverse. Ultimately it tends to collapse under its own inaction as those who are accepting of more risk go elsewhere.
Electing top management is also a weak approach because it becomes very political and seldom elevates merit.
People have different goals, some want long term job security, some want short-term rewards, and so on. The more people you add the harder doing anything becomes.
In other words a cooperative succeeds when it has a very clear set of goals and ambitions and only accepts people who are tightly aligned with those. It's a very difficult structure to be successful at.
If that's true, it would be very sad indeed. Techical excellence is a very low bar to clear. It's so easy even AI can do that part.
When I was young, and learning my technical skills, then naturally I was focused on improving those skills. At that age I defined myself by what I did, and so my self worth was related to my skills. And while the skills are not hard to acquire, not many did, and they were well paid. All of which made me value them even more.
As I've grown older though I discovered my best parts had nothing to do with tech skills. My best parts (work wise) was in translating those skills into a viable business, hiring the right people, focusing my attention where it's needed (and getting out the way where it's not.) My best parts at work are my human relationships with colleagues, customers, prospects and so on.
Outside of work my technical skills mean nothing. My family and friends couldn't care less. They barely know I have drills at all, and no idea if I'm any good or not. In that space compassion, loyalty, reliability, kindness, generosity, helpfulness, positivity, contentment and so on are far (far) more important.
I hope at my funeral people remember those things. Whether I could set up email or drive an AI will (hopefully) not even be in the top 10.
I really love your post, but I do think (and I come from an artistic background) that some skills have their own beauty, like work of art. Some love for creativity and what we create has a meaning of its own. Certainly worthy of an epitaph.
It’s why overuse of AI is a bad call imo. You skip a part of the journey. Like Guy Kawasaki says “make something meaningful”. If we are all AIs talking to eachother, everything becomes meaningless, we will become a simulation of surrogates.
That said, human compassion, relating to others and everything you mentioned trumps everything else.
Sure thing, but at the same time, there's creativity and then there's work; I could creatively write things in C or assembly for the art of it, but that isn't what my employer pays me to do. I could do my job in notepad or `ed` and type every character myself, but that's inefficient.
Same goes for art (which is often what it's compared to), some part of art is creative, but the vast majority of art that people get paid salaries for is "just work"; designing a website, doing graphics work for a video game or TV production, that kinda thing.
tl;dr, AI won't replace artisans but it's a tool that can help increase productivity / reduce costs. Emphasis on can, because it's a lot more complex than "same output in less time".
Harvester is just Kubevirt with some UI atop it, the same as Redhat Virt. Works fine if you’re hosting datacenters or whatever, haven’t seen it be suitable in smaller manufacturing environment
Over 60% are SUSE?! Sorry, but I’m with everyone else…
I remember since the start that SUSE was more popular in Europe, but no way would that be the case in the US. If anything, I’d be willing to put my money on > 60% of Linux installs being RHEL/Centos rather than SUSE
You could get the number wrong. The quote stated that 60% of the companies use Suse to power some of the workloads. So if most of these companies would use Suse to host SAP, some have a few teams using Rancher and some (more so in Europe ) are using Sles you still get to these numbers even if most of them use RedHat for most of their workloads.
Why would they lie? Hacker News simply has this bizarre blind spot about what Fortune 500 companies do and what computers are that run Linux. One of their biggest customers is Chick-fil-a using k3s for the their point-of-sale network. I'm sure there are approximately zero employees interacting with the system that realize that, but it's still there.
Also, from my own experience, SUSE used to have nearly all of the US geointelligence processing because of the HPC connection mentioned elsewhere with CrayOS, but that went away when DNI forced everyone onto the CIA's private AWS service, which only had RHEL AMIs available. The national labs and more niche intelligence processing that can't run in the kinds of machines AWS provides still make heavy use of it.
Imagine I had a pill today that absolutely cured cancer. It would take years of clinical trials, testing on animals and humans, exploration of side effects, which cancers it fixes and so on. and so on. And thats before we talk about production at scale and so on.
The AI idea is the really fast part of the cycle, but its a tiny part of the process.
It sounds to me like there is much in your life you cannot control. That sucks. Sorry for that.
But it seems like this specific thing is something you feel you can control, and so you are investing an excess of effort in it.
Perhaps consider if going down this road is ultimately helpful to you, or to your son. Are there other places to spend your energy which would be more beneficial?
I'd also suggest that your endeavor here is fruitless. Ultimately showing you don't buy alcohol does not equate to proving your sobriety. There are too many ways to source, or even make, your own. Plus drunks are notorious liars, so pursuing this matter obsessively hurts rather than helps your case.
Obviously formally note your objection to the report. But then, if you can, move on. And I hope that the new support is helping you avoid some of the conditions that lead up to this event in the first place.
reply