While reproducible build envs are a nice feature of using containers, they aren't the primary benefit.
The primary benefit is resource usage and orchestration.
Rather than duplicating entire aspects of an OS stack (which might ne considered wasteful) they allow for workloads to share aspects of the system they run on while maintaining a kind of logical isolation.
This allows for more densely packed workloads and more effective use of resources. This is a reason why the tech was developed and pushed by google and adopted by hyperscalers.
Well it doesn't need to imply it, those measures do drive up the cost without debate. It's fine that they do though as we value people's lives more than that.
All those lulz got me thinking what if the Havana syndrome generator can be miniaturized and integrated into smartphones, and activated by an ubiquitous process like overloading the energy consumption of the chip with an apparent system bug. They would have created a brain frying grenade taken straight from some GI Joe sunday cartoon.
It is an amazing model! I think it works well because it's a library that is "infrastructure" / "support" for other systems though (browsers, android)
I wonder if it applies to the kind of software that is more complete like anything with a UI etc. If I get the final result the tests don't mean much to me.
Well, it applies to very popular software. SQLite3 is probably the most popular software ever written. This really might be a special case. But it probably would work for things like: OpenSSL, PostgreSQL, Java, Rust, and a few others. Most if not all of those don't need to change models, which leaves newer / less popular projects, and for those to bootstrap this model is difficult. It might be that the SQLite model is unique -- that it won't be repeated much or at all.
In general, it's not a protection from gross negligence and/or fraud.
The problem is that in cases like these it's extremely difficult to prove such a thing, especially considering it's over many decades and potentially dozens of people.
There's also a bit of practical concerns where criminal prosecutions don't want to pick cases that are tough to win as it'll be resource intense to pursue them.
Of course like the Volkswagen situation you reference (in Germany) where the corporation operates may impact criminal prosecution.
This just isn't true though. Do you mean to say thay legal remedies are more accessible to the rich? Every single small business owner benefits from the liability protections of corporations. If my business burns down and it's not fraud or something then I am not personally liable, nor should I be.
Your business burning down isn't the same as you, as (I assume) ceo of your company, acting knowingly in a way that causes death and illness to other people. This thread is about the fact that limited liability shouldn't protect you from the second scenario. Your comment is off topic.
> Corporate entities and the legal protection they provide are accessible to only the wealthy and elite.
This is the part of the previous comment to which I was responding, giving just one example of how it's not the case. Limited Liability corporations protect business owners of all wealth levels. Just correcting a patently false claim.
I understand your concern about thread topic, but it's just not really applicable to my point above.
I don't think so, I think it was topical just perhaps not in favour of your view.
The person they were replying to and to which their point related to, was very much narrowing down and exaggerating corporate entities to a "small group of people" of the "wealthy and elite".
While these larger corporations limit larger amounts of liability, most people can create a business and have it as a company, giving them limited liability. Yes, large corporations have the money and resources to better limit their liability than a smaller corporation.
They weren't disagreeing with that person, but providing a more balanced view in which liability limitations benefit companies of all sizes, not just larger ones.
Why would anyone believe that legal remedies are not more accessible to the rich? That's the foundation of the cash bail system, among many, many other differences.
Did you read the prompt? it says this immediately after:
'Use all possible different descents with equal probability. Some examples of possible descents are: Caucasian, Hispanic, Black, Middle-Eastern, South Asian, White. They should all have equal probability.'
The primary benefit is resource usage and orchestration.
Rather than duplicating entire aspects of an OS stack (which might ne considered wasteful) they allow for workloads to share aspects of the system they run on while maintaining a kind of logical isolation.
This allows for more densely packed workloads and more effective use of resources. This is a reason why the tech was developed and pushed by google and adopted by hyperscalers.