For me, one of the most important features of a configuration language is the ability to directly refer to other values of the configuration, and more importantly, in the case of a configuration split in separate modules, to refer to values that could be provided by the other modules.
Essentially, this means that the final configuration should be the fixed point of a function, that the user would provide the configuration as a definition of this function (or in the case of multiple modules, as multiple definitions that would be merged using function composition), and that the evaluator would be able to determine the fixed point of this function.
I feel like this kind of configuration (used notably in NixOS) provides a lot of what's missing in traditional configuration languages, makes it easier to compose configuration modules, without requiring to write the configuration in a Turing-complete language.
In magnetic confinement reactors, the runaway neutrons collide with the reactor's shielding and can make it radioactive by neutron activation. I don't know if it's the same for inertial confinement, but I suppose it could be an explanation.
I prefer calling a graph "colored" rather than "with a labeling of the graph’s vertices with labels such that no two vertices sharing the same edge have the same label". Sometimes my graph being colored will be a problem, sometimes it will be a good thing.
Note that is just a parallel with colored functions, the "colored" word does not mean the same thing here (the meaning of "colored" in graph theory has little to do with the one used in programming).
Nonetheless, if I think that using this word is upsetting to some group of persons, whether I understand their reaction or not, I try to avoid using it. On the Internet it's difficult, because we're addressing ourselves to a very large potential audience.
> Finally,Java performs best on this benchmark; we can see whilerunning the benchmark that it can run the G1 collectorfully concurrent on another core.
I hope this is good news for the Blender Development Fund, but I'm scared of the possible consequences. I suppose we may end up seeing Blender Cloud offering remote renders using AWS's infrastructure, which is good news unless it means tying the rendering engines to Amazon tech.
For context, here is a brief overview of the 2019 financial report of the Blender foundation :
- 33% of income (316 k€) from individual sponsors
- 28% of income (267 k€) from EPIC Games
- 27% of income (257 k€) from other corporate sponsors
- highest salary: 58.4 k€
- lowest salary: 32.5 k€ (55% of highest)
- 43% of expenses (416 k€) were salaries
I really like Blender, and seeing it thrive in the last years has brought me immense pleasure. I hope that I have the chance to work with Blender again, and benefit from the recent improvements.
Congratulations to the Blender Development Fund for this new sponsor, which I hope will bring value to the project.
Creatives have been rendering on AWS GPUs for a while now with automation tools like Brenda (in case of Blender), and Amazon is clearly looking to capture that market with a more comprehensive and user-friendly solution locked into their infrastructure. Would help sell more computing resources and all that.
They have folks like SideFX and Autodesk on board, and a year ago I thought I’d seen Adobe but it’s not listed—either my memory is playing tricks on me, or Adobe left to compete with a platform of their own.
The less money you spend on a paid blender alternative yhe more you have to spend on Amazon; this is a very well known strategy of commoditizing your complement:
https://www.gwern.net/Complement
Ah, thanks (I could not parse the sentence somehow).
For an indie producer this is true in some ways.
From the point of view of AWS, if you have spent multiple thousands of dollars on a Houdini FX license you may in fact have more you could give them than a one-person indie shop on Blender, but knowing AWS’s pricing they will surely not mind getting both.
I wonder if Blender guys kindly told Amazon that they won’t spend time implementing or reviewing features required for various Thinkbox integrations unless Amazon forks over some support money.
People online talk about lumberyard being frustrating to use and in-progress on several fronts. The docs are better than unreals at first glance but the community isn’t massive so I’m not sure how easy it would be to debug any issues that came up. It’s forked from cryengine iirc, so it probably is amazing with outdoor vegetation-heavy scenes. I hope to try it out one day, but unreal has been very nice to use so far
Lumberyard is widely hated by folks working at Amazon and the only external folks I’m aware of using it are folks who moved from the engine it is based on.
My understanding is they are moving away from it internally, but I have no privileged info there.
As for open render clouds, I've been contributing to https://www.sheepit-renderfarm.com/ for quite some time. It's a client that downloads frames to render and uses your machine to do it, generating tokens for future renders. I'm currently in the top-20 in frame render contributions (rolling 30-day average)... should I ever have time to get into 3D rendering, my projects will be prioritized for sure. :P
It is probably as simple as talent development, it’s a drop in the bucket for an enthusiastic creator for Amazon Prime or to recruit a tech artist. People already use AWS for rendering.
That puts you just below the top 10% of earners in the UK, which is not exactly cheap to live in so I would define that as very good salary. You have to remember that a) FAANGS have insane salaries not seen anywhere else but the price you pay as an employee is living in the Bay Area, which is hugely expensive and also, politely, not to everyone's taste. And b) the additional costs paid by an employer for things like pension, employer contributions to health care etc. are generally higher in Europe than in the USA so the total cost of an employee to the the employer and the concomitant benefits the employee gets (paid holiday, paid sick leave, protection from being fired for no reason, a decent pension) are much higher than in the USA. It's a trade off but I'd rather get paid 55,000 Euro and live in most of Europe than 100,000 Euro and live in most of the USA.
Outside of SV and investment bubbles software just doesn't pay much over your average white collar job.
I actually don't mind. I want an economy with a fat middle class for blue and white collar workers, part of that is accepting fewer sky high salaries. Devs in VC bubbles must realise they are an anomoly and there are perverse incentives driving salaries up. Everyone else has to fit into a more grounded economic model.
I feel like this is a good application of the two red button meme. Do you want a fat middle class or do you want to get paid in line with the value your work produces?
These aren’t inherently mutually incompatible, but the nature of software is distilling hard problems into products with nearly 0 per unit marginal cost. As a result one pretty ok programmer can generate millions of dollars of value.
I definitely want the fat middle class, but it's a pretty complex reason that probably doesn't shake out in a free market. For one, we can make software more accessible to broader society.
You are right that many types of software produce orders of magnitude more money than was put in. But if you were to look at the broader workforce and industry, you'll find that much software is just a small part of a much bigger machine that has almost nothing to do with software. That's where I would rather see more software developers.
As it stands, VC pours billions into startups that make 0 money until they can flip the investment dollars on the public market. They stand somewhat isolated from the rest of the economy. That's why wages can get so high. Not because the software itself sold billions of dollars worth of service or value.
There's probably lots of software that doesn't get written but would be hugely beneficial to the numerous facets of society, because small businesses can't afford a software engineer when competing with SV wages.
That's me looking at things from afar, I am not in SV, and my experience is on the ground floor of software companies that are producing work for industries that aren't software. It's a totally different market, and I would rather see more software in this space than making another overvalued software doodad valued entirely for it's potential as an advertising platform.
Is there much of that middle class in Europe, though? My definition of "middle class" is "someone with substantial savings, almost enough to not work" and I suppose that there isn't much left from 50k after food and housing bills are paid.
"there isn't much left from 50k after food and housing bills are paid"
This is quite US centric view (partially due to higher prices, partially due to runaway expectations).
This was quoted in euro, maybe at least some employed people are outside USA?
To quote results of <minimum wage Ukraine> search:
> As of today, September 1, 2020, the minimum wage in Ukraine amounts to 5,000 hryvnias (181,4 dollars) per month and 29,2 hryvnias (1,06 dollars) per hour.
I understand tour point but keep in mind that developerstht can work a bit remotely will makemih more than minimal wage of their country and more importantly minimal wage is a decision, you can have a rich country with no (or very minimal) minimal salary. Could be interesting to find 1st decile salary or median by example.
I feel like this is a bit of a misconception. Most of the time cost of living doesn't scale alongside compensation increase. And most devs in high paid regions, even if their region has a higher COL still end up with much more wealth in the end.
For example, San Francisco COL will be around 5000$ per month for rent, utilities, food, transportation, etc. Where as dev compensation will be around 150k a year. On which you'll pay about 36% in tax, leaving you with about 100k a year. That's 8333$ a month.
So as an average dev in San Francisco your monthly profit will be 3333$ a month. That's 40k a year in savings.
Now we were looking at a high compensation of 58.4k and a low of 32.5k based on OP about blender compensations. That's an average of 45k. So their COL and tax burden would need to be less than 5k just to make the same amount as the average San Francisco dev. Any higher then that (and it's very likely to be higher), and they are making less than the average San Francisco dev.
Now that's not all. The largest portion of the COL of the dev in San Francisco was rent, 3500$ went to rent. That means, any dev in San Francisco can easily choose to make an extra 1750$ a year simply by choosing to live with a roommate. Or they can easily make an extra 500$ by choosing to rent slightly further out. If they happen to live with a partner that has income, and especially if they also are a tech worker (which happens often since so many people in San Francisco are working in tech), well they both similarly now make an extra 1750$ a month. That's an extra 21k a year, so now that dev can have a profit of 61k a year if they want, which is more than the total compensation of the highest paid blender dev.
And if the San Francisco dev manages to get a home loan and purchase a home or condo, they can expect to make back close to 2500k per month which they were previously losing in rent.
So I'm not saying COL doesn't matter, but most of the time, regions with higher pay, even if higher COL, still leave you in a much better financial situation.
The only real thing you sacrifice is the size of your home or apartment. But for a lot of people, that's a fine sacrifice to make, especially temporarily, say in the first 15 years of your career for example.
Are you suggesting one should pay more because his living expense is higher than the other?
You should pay for how much is being contributed.
The only thing that should lower the pay is developer's own satisfaction. In other words, one would pay more for stuff others don't want to do or incapable of doing.
Well, this simply isn't how it works in capitalism. Garbage truck workers also contribute a lot to society (wait until they go on strike for a month). However, the job is paid badly, since it requires very little education, so almost anyone can do the job.
If you actually take the word "contribute" to a better degree, if a work can be done by anyone even though the society needs it, it's not much of a contribution.
I'm using this setup, and I still get cookie/ToS banners all the time, especially using Google (I think I'm accepting their new terms of service 4/5 times each day).
This is exactly what I thought 3 years ago when a dentist told me that it was very important for me to get rid of my wisdom teeth, because loss of enamel meant that they were very likely to decay quickly even with proper hygiene. Other dentists told me that it was not necessary, and could be done later if the teeth ended up decaying too much.
Now the teeth are completely decayed, I've started to feel severe pain, and since I've developed severe thrombopenia (<20 G/L), I can't get them extracted easily (couldn't find any dentist willing to take that risk), so since six months, I have to take anti inflammatory drugs for the pain and antiobiotics to limit the infections, as well as the folic acid and corticosteroids needed for ITP, and I have no idea when will this end.
It's very difficult to differentiate important advice from "easy money" advices, especially when this advice stems for a principle of precaution. Most peoples don't develop severe ITP, but if they do, getting wisdom teeth removed before they can cause problems can be very important.
This is a long shot but some claim that vitamin K-2 can regenerate teeth to some degree. It might get your teeth in good enough condition to remove.
I had started taking K-2 (Jarrow MK-7 menaquinone-7 FWIW) for other reasons but when my semiannual dental checkup came due, both the technician and dentist kept marveling about how pristine and healthy my teeth were. They credited it to my brushing and flossing habits, which had not changed. I took the praise but was puzzled until I remembered that the K-2 might be helping my teeth.
It depends on many factors (teeth being devitalised, expected complications during the surgery, and other non-teeth related factors as well). Some people do get a local anesthesia (not knocked out), others have no choice.
I find it very unfortunate that file metadata is not encrypted : if you need this to be encrypted, you need to stack LUKS on top of ZFS, and you lose many of the benefits of ZFS (per-dataset encryption, healing ability, RAIDz, etc) while doing so. Running ZFS->LUKS->ZFS to recover some of these benefits is also not feasible at all (ZFS doesn't like to self-host, even through a virtual machine).
Metadata not encrypted: Dataset / snapshot names, Dataset properties, Pool layout, ZFS Structure, Dedup tables
ZFS encrypts: File data and metadata ,ACLs, names, permissions, attrs
Directory listings,, All Zvol data,FUID Mappings
,Master encryption keys
,All of the above in the L2ARC
,All of the above in the ZIL
For most uses and use cases this is net increase in security. You can do some operations on data without needing the keys.
You don't need to stack ZFS-on-LUKS-on-ZFS, you just need to put ZFS onto LUKS rather than onto the raw disks.
The downside is that you have a choice between encrypting all file data twice, or losing the benefits of ZFS's encryption (mainly the ability to send snapshots to another pool without decrypting them). It would be nice if you could specify a pool key to be used to encrypt all blocks not covered by ZFS native encryption, which would eliminate the need for LUKS.
For me, one of the most important features of a configuration language is the ability to directly refer to other values of the configuration, and more importantly, in the case of a configuration split in separate modules, to refer to values that could be provided by the other modules.
Essentially, this means that the final configuration should be the fixed point of a function, that the user would provide the configuration as a definition of this function (or in the case of multiple modules, as multiple definitions that would be merged using function composition), and that the evaluator would be able to determine the fixed point of this function.
I feel like this kind of configuration (used notably in NixOS) provides a lot of what's missing in traditional configuration languages, makes it easier to compose configuration modules, without requiring to write the configuration in a Turing-complete language.