Google is really wrecking its brand with the search AI summaries thing, which is unbelievably bad compared to their Gemini offerings, including the free one. The continued existence of it is baffling.
It's mystifying. A relative showed me a heavily AI-generated video claiming a Tesla wheelchair was coming (self-driving of course, with a sub-$800 price tag). I tried to Google it to quickly debunk and got an AI Overview confidently stating it was a real thing. The source it linked to: that same YouTube video!
Yeah. It's the final nail in the coffin of search, which now actively surfaces incorrect results when it isn't serving ads that usually deliberately pretend to be the site you're looking for. The only thing I use it for any more is to find a site I know exists but I don't know the URL of.
Mine (prometheus) doesn’t because there are a lot of high-dimensional values to track in /proc and /sys that would blow out storage on a time-series database. Even if they did though, they could not let me actively inject changes to a cgroup. What do you suggest I try that does?
Experience from another company where I (and you) worked suggests that having the endpoints to expose the system metrics, without actually collecting and storing them, is the way to go.
Years of debugging in that company’s restricted environments solidified my desire for shell access to production environments. I was there a month before I was hunting for breadcrumbs in a BINARY_INFO log that I had five minutes to grab before it was deleted.
Well that's funny you mentioned it because one of my projects was a service that let users temporarily install binary info logs collectors triggered by predicates, remotely, which at least I thought was a better model than ssh into the host or, for the advanced caveman, pdsh into many hosts. I don't really see a reason why I can't do that for gRPC, either ...
But, anyway, remote command and control of observability really is a thing in the industry, not just at one company.
This seems like a solution looking for a problem. If the power companies were satisfied about the safety issues of this idea, which are obviously many and severe, then they would also be satisfied with simply mounting a charging platform for the drone atop the tower or pole where the HV line runs, which cuts out a lot of the uncertainty regarding the drone's autonomous guidance.
Also, the whole idea triggers my reflexive skepticism about any technology that seeks to remove the last human from the system. Usually there are exponentially increasing costs to removing the next human, and at some point it's not worth it. People want (wanted) to make sealed, autonomous data centers maintained by robots and it just isn't worth it. Even in manufacturing where robotic automation is ubiquitous and advanced there are still tons of humans.
The choice of what to include is editorial, and you already have to be neck-deep in the Fox News alternate universe to believe that Feeding our Future was a fraud worth mentioning on a national scale.
I think the article is a bit of a Rorschach diagram that tells us about each reader's perspective and relatively less about the author. If you're a pessimist this article is repulsive. Woowoo spiritualists will see it as an affirmation of their universal belief. Me? I agree with your take. I read it as a long-form boomer "#blessed". To a modern reader it makes the author, who had these experiences during a time of great slack and abundance, seem clueless.
It could still be identifiable, for example if the document has been prepared such that the intended recipient's identity is encoded into subtle modulation of the widths of spaces.
That's outside this threat model? The idea here is trying to foil outside analysis, not limit the document authors (which are allowed to add/update and even write openly 'the intended recipient's identity').
reply