saint

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
 

Not my generation, but I support the message:

  • Why Gen Z isn't apologizing for their work boundaries: a revealing look at the generation redefining workplace norms
  • The economics behind Gen Z's "quiet quitting": how housing impossibility and stagnant wages created a generation of strategic workers
  • Inside the millennial manager's dilemma: balancing progressive values with frustration over Gen Z's approach to professional advancement
  • How AI tools are helping younger employees work smarter (not harder) while their bosses struggle to adapt
  • The death of company loyalty: why 75% of employees leave before getting promoted and what it means for workplace culture
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27408560

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27384100

The global backlash against the second Donald Trump administration keeps on growing. Canadians have boycotted US-made products, anti–Elon Musk posters have appeared across London amid widespread Tesla protests, and European officials have drastically increased military spending as US support for Ukraine falters. Dominant US tech services may be the next focus.

There are early signs that some European companies and governments are souring on their use of American cloud services provided by the three so-called hyperscalers. Between them, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) host vast swathes of the Internet and keep thousands of businesses running. However, some organizations appear to be reconsidering their use of these companies’ cloud services—including servers, storage, and databases—citing uncertainties around privacy and data access fears under the Trump administration.

“There’s a huge appetite in Europe to de-risk or decouple the over-dependence on US tech companies, because there is a concern that they could be weaponized against European interests,” says Marietje Schaake, a nonresident fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and a former decadelong member of the European Parliament.

 

Before Trump's return to office was secured, I was chatting online with a friend about Putin's strategy in Ukraine. "Putin is playing the long game," my friend observed, "he realizes he cannot win quickly, but he's patiently waiting for a miracle."

"What miracle could possibly save him?" I asked.

My friend's answer seemed absurd then: "Well, Trump could be elected." We both brushed it off as the craziest idea possible—a distant, unlikely scenario.

That dismissal has now turned to a chill of recognition. The "miracle" has materialized.

My friend also pointed out something crucial about Russian warfare that the West consistently underestimates: "Russia knows how to wage slow, grinding wars. They depend on sacrificing humans, which post-Soviet Russia has plenty of." While Western democracies measure war in weeks and political cycles, Putin measures it in years and generations. His strategic patience stems from a fundamentally different calculus of human life.

The recent White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky demonstrated this new reality with startling clarity. What should have been serious diplomacy became, in Trump's own proud words, "great television." The Ukrainian president wasn't treated as the leader of a nation fighting for survival but as a contestant on a reality show—publicly scolded and dismissed without meaningful support.

Yet the European response to this alarming spectacle has been painfully predictable. We Europeans dismiss Friday's event as a mere misunderstanding, a temporary blip in the transatlantic relationship. We continue our decades-long tradition of waiting on bended knee for American salvation. "America is a friend and it will help, for sure. They have promised." "NATO will defend us, how can it not?"

As the old military adage goes: "If you don't pay for your own army, you'll end up paying for someone else's." Europe has long enjoyed the luxury of minimal defense spending while sheltering under America's security umbrella. That bargain, which already showed cracks during previous administrations, now appears to be fundamentally broken.

This outsourcing of security has left Europe strategically impotent at precisely the moment when it needs to stand on its own. Trump's sudden embrace of "peace at any cost" represents everything the Kremlin strategists have patiently awaited. They didn't need to defeat Ukraine militarily; they simply needed to outlast Western resolve. Putin's strategy—trading time and Russian lives for Western fatigue—has paid off. Now, without firing a single additional shot, he watches as his greatest adversary's support crumbles from within.

The evidence of Kremlin influence is no longer subtle. Trump's talking points—from questioning Ukraine's sovereignty to suggesting territorial concessions—echo Moscow's propaganda with alarming precision. What took years of sophisticated disinformation campaigns to seed now flows freely from the Oval Office.

Europe faces an existential choice: step forward immediately to fill America's retreating role or watch as the rules-based order collapses. Each day of European hesitation is a victory for Putin, who has mastered the art of the long game while Western democracies remain trapped in short-term thinking and strategic dependency.

The Ukrainian people, who have endured years of Russian terror, deserve better than becoming pawns in America's domestic political games or victims of Europe's strategic complacency. This humiliating spectacle reveals the cruel calculus of modern geopolitics: principles crumble before personalities, democratic values bow to authoritarian pressure, and what we once dismissed as a crazy improbability has become Ukraine's waking nightmare.

Putin waited for his miracle, and against all odds, it arrived in Washington—proving once again that those who can sacrifice the most and wait the longest often prevail in geopolitics, regardless of moral standing.

While our governments dither in bureaucratic paralysis—or to put it in more direct terms, while they prove themselves utterly useless—we as citizens cannot afford to wait. If this spectacle has shown us anything, it's that relying solely on official channels means accepting defeat by delay.

For every dollar America withholds, let's send two euros. This isn't just a slogan—it's a practical response. If Trump cuts a billion in aid, Europe's citizens should mobilize two billion. Not through our hesitant governments, but through direct action and personal commitment.

Support for Ukraine must become a personal responsibility. There are countless ways to help—donate directly to Ukrainian aid organizations, support businesses that employ Ukrainian refugees, push your local representatives to act even as national governments hesitate, or volunteer your skills, time, and resources.

For a comprehensive list of vetted charities supporting everything from military equipment to humanitarian aid to animal shelters, visit the r/ukraine wiki at https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities/ or simply search online for Ukrainian support organizations. Choose one or two that align with your values and commit to regular contributions.

The question is no longer whether Europe's institutions will step up, but whether its people will. Every euro sent directly to Ukrainian humanitarian efforts or defense funds is a statement that we refuse to be complicit in Putin's waiting game. If our governments won't lead, then we must—from the ground up, person by person, community by community.

History will remember not just what our leaders failed to do, but what ordinary citizens chose to do despite them.

 

Russian leaders and propagandists have at once denied the existence of a Ukrainian nation and called for purging or cleansing the Ukrainian territory, in terms that often mirror rhetoric preceding past genocides. In this report, the authors seek to shed light on how Russia's extremist, hate-peddling narratives deployed in the war have spread online through social media.

Russian propaganda is making inroads into some of the major European languages—Spanish and German, as well as French and Italian.

REMVE narratives are also finding more-receptive audiences among relatively small linguistic communities in Eastern Europe. Serbian- and Bulgarian-language communities emerge as particularly vulnerable to cross-language and cross-cultural transmission of REMVE messages on both X and Telegram.

However, Russia's ability to successfully mainstream its propaganda and mobilize its audiences against Ukrainians is limited: The most virulent REMVE conversations on these two platforms remain highly Russian-language dominated, are concentrated in specific communities, and do not draw much attention from others in the networks.

Full research report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3400/RRA3450-1/RAND_RRA3450-1.pdf

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

no, no and no, but you will have to find an answer if your decision to have or not to have kids was the right choice in any case.

 

The incoming Trump administration has been supportive of this European initiative. It is consistent with the president-elect's stated desire to disengage the United States from security matters on the continent, and instead have the European Union and the United Kingdom take the lead. But a deployment of European forces to Ukraine will inevitably entangle the Americans. European militaries depend on their U.S. allies for out-of-area operations. Inevitably, a large deployment to Ukraine will once again expose this dependency when they turn to the United States for help with critical tasks such as air lift, logistics, and intelligence that they cannot conduct alone.

 

The Ukrainian military faces critical challenges that demand immediate, honest evaluation:

  • Infantry roles becoming increasingly unsustainable

  • Recruitment system disproportionately burdens vulnerable populations

  • Command structures trapped in outdated bureaucratic frameworks

  • Morale gradually eroding under prolonged combat stress

  • No clear exit strategy for frontline soldiers

  • Commanders prioritizing reporting over human lives

  • Declining Western support momentum

  • Deeply entrenched leadership inefficiencies

Suggested changes:

  • Implement merit-based officer promotion systems
  • Establish fixed, transparent service terms
  • Rebuild trust between military leadership and soldiers

More in the article.

 

According to the article, Danieli continues to operate in Russia despite EU sanctions, collaborating with steel giants like Severstal and MMK, both linked to military production. Danieli reportedly uses its Chinese subsidiary to bypass sanctions, enabling the supply of equipment to Russia. In 2023, its Russian subsidiary’s cash flow increased 35-fold, contradicting claims that the business is unprofitable or disconnected from the military sector. The company’s justification hinges on technicalities, but the financial and strategic realities suggest complicity in sustaining critical industries that support Russia’s war economy. At what point does this move from legal maneuvering to outright enabling?

 
  • Companies are earning billions while pushing for automation that cuts jobs.
  • Automation is replacing workers across industries, from shipping terminals to retail. “Who pays taxes when machines replace workers?”
  • A dockworker strike could halt the economy.

I think automation is unavoidable, but what is next?

 

How Base 3 Computing Beats Binary

Metadata

Highlights

Three, as Schoolhouse Rock! told children of the 1970s, is a magic number. Three little pigs; three beds, bowls and bears for Goldilocks; three Star Wars trilogies. You need at least three legs for a stool to stand on its own, and at least three points to define a triangle.

If a three-state system is so efficient, you might imagine that a four-state or five-state system would be even more so. But the more digits you require, the more space you’ll need. It turns out that ternary is the most economical of all possible integer bases for representing big numbers.

Surprisingly, if you allow a base to be any real number, and not just an integer, then the most efficient computational base is the irrational number e.

Despite its natural advantages, base 3 computing never took off, even though many mathematicians marveled at its efficiency. In 1840, an English printer, inventor, banker and self-taught mathematician named Thomas Fowler invented a ternary computing machine to calculate weighted values of taxes and interest. “After that, very little was done for years,” said Bertrand Cambou, an applied physicist at Northern Arizona University.

Why didn’t ternary computing catch on? The primary reason was convention. Even though Soviet scientists were building ternary devices, the rest of the world focused on developing hardware and software based on switching circuits — the foundation of binary computing. Binary was easier to implement.

 

Highlights

The first scaling crisis happened in 1996, when Linus wrote that he was "buried alive in emails". It was addressed by adopting a more modular architecture, with the introduction of loadable kernel modules, and the creation of the maintainers role, who support the contributors in ensuring that they implement the high standards of quality needed to merge their contributions.

The second scaling crisis lasted from 1998 to 2002, and was finally addressed by the adoption of BitKeeper, later replaced by Git. This distributed the job of merging contributions across the network of maintainers and contributors.

In both cases, technology was used to reduce the amount of dependencies between teams, help contributors keep a high level of autonomy, and make it easy to merge all those contributions back into the main repository, Bernhard said.

Technology can help reduce the need to communicate between teams whenever they have a dependency on another team to get their work done. Typical organizational dependencies, such as when a team relies on another team’s data, can be replaced by self-service APIs using the right technologies and architecture, Bernhard mentioned. This can be extended to more complicated dependencies, such as infrastructure provisioning, as AWS pioneered when they invented EC2, offering self-service APIs to spin up virtual servers, he added.

Another type of dependency is dealing with the challenge of merging contributions made to a similar document, whether it’s an illustration, a text, or source code, Bernhard mentioned. This has been transformed in the last 15 years by real-time collaboration software such as Google Docs and distributed versioning systems such as Git, he said.

Anyone trying to scale an agile organization should study lean thinking to benefit from decades of experience on how to lead large organizations while staying true to the spirit of the agile manifesto, he concluded.

 

Good slides on how to reduce risks

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Būtų įdomu paskaityt tai kas ten iš tiesų įvyko ir kaip buvo tvarkoma, bet turbūt Cloudflare lygio post-mortem analizės tikėtis neverta.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

What about it? ;)

 

Highlights

In analyzing 138 actively exploited vulnerabilities in 2023, Google Mandiant reported Oct. 15 that 70% of them were zero-days, indicating that threat actors are getting much better at identifying vulnerabilities in software.

It’s a worrying trend in and of itself, but what caused even more concern among security analysts was that Google Mandiant also found that the time-to-exploit (TTE) — the time it takes threat actors to exploit a flaw — was down to a mere five days in 2023 compared with 63 days in 2018-19 and 32 days in 2021-22.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Not anymore, nowadays, I feel guilty reading non-fiction and understand Lindy effect on books much better (be it fiction or non-fiction).

[–] [email protected] 26 points 9 months ago

They cut all such scenes and pasted into The Boys, in a Mark Twain style “Sprinkle these around as you see fit!”.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

A Tomb for Boris Davidovich - Danilo Kiš

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Reread today again, with some highlights:

Lessons Learned from Twenty Years of Site Reliability Engineering

Metadata

Highlights

The riskiness of a mitigation should scale with the severity of the outage

We, here in SRE, have had some interesting experiences in choosing a mitigation with more risks than the outage it's meant to resolve.

We learned the hard way that during an incident, we should monitor and evaluate the severity of the situation and choose a mitigation path whose riskiness is appropriate for that severity.

Recovery mechanisms should be fully tested before an emergency

An emergency fire evacuation in a tall city building is a terrible opportunity to use a ladder for the first time.

Testing recovery mechanisms has a fun side effect of reducing the risk of performing some of these actions. Since this messy outage, we've doubled down on testing.

We were pretty sure that it would not lead to anything bad. But pretty sure is not 100% sure.

A "Big Red Button" is a unique but highly practical safety feature: it should kick off a simple, easy-to-trigger action that reverts whatever triggered the undesirable state to (ideally) shut down whatever's happening.

Unit tests alone are not enough - integration testing is also needed

This lesson was learned during a Calendar outage in which our testing didn't follow the same path as real use, resulting in plenty of testing... that didn't help us assess how a change would perform in reality.

Teams were expecting to be able to use Google Hangouts and Google Meet to manage the incident. But when 350M users were logged out of their devices and services... relying on these Google services was, in retrospect, kind of a bad call.

It's easy to think of availability as either "fully up" or "fully down" ... but being able to offer a continuous minimum functionality with a degraded performance mode helps to offer a more consistent user experience.

This next lesson is a recommendation to ensure that your last-line-of-defense system works as expected in extreme scenarios, such as natural disasters or cyber attacks, that result in loss of productivity or service availability.

A useful activity can also be sitting your team down and working through how some of these scenarios could theoretically play out—tabletop game style. This can also be a fun opportunity to explore those terrifying "What Ifs", for example, "What if part of your network connectivity gets shut down unexpectedly?".

In such instances, you can reduce your mean time to resolution (MTTR), by automating mitigating measures done by hand. If there's a clear signal that a particular failure is occurring, then why can't that mitigation be kicked off in an automated way? Sometimes it is better to use an automated mitigation first and save the root-causing for after user impact has been avoided.

Having long delays between rollouts, especially in complex, multiple component systems, makes it extremely difficult to reason out the safety of a particular change. Frequent rollouts—with the proper testing in place— lead to fewer surprises from this class of failure.

Having only one particular model of device to perform a critical function can make for simpler operations and maintenance. However, it means that if that model turns out to have a problem, that critical function is no longer being performed.

Latent bugs in critical infrastructure can lurk undetected until a seemingly innocuous event triggers them. Maintaining a diverse infrastructure, while incurring costs of its own, can mean the difference between a troublesome outage and a total one.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

This is what you get when are not sleeping during biology classes.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

a source code of a game ;))

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

i am all for normalizing raiding ambassies for [put the cause you support] as well

view more: next ›