Colo is when you want to bring your own hardware, not when you want physical access to your devices. Many (most?) colo datacenters are still secure sites that you can't visit.
I don't think so. I don't think anybody is going to hand off their server and ask someone else to hook it up. Also, you need access so you can troubleshoot hardware issues.
Every colo I've visited has a system for allowing physical access for our equipment, generally during specific operating hours with secure access card.
I've only ever seen that at data centers that offer colo as more of a side service or cater to little guys who are coloing by the rack unit. All of the serious colocation services I've used or quoted from offer 24/7 site access.
Basically anywhere with cage or cabinet colocation is going to have site access, because those delineations only make sense to restrict on-site human access.
To be quite honest I've never seen a colo that didn't offer access at all. The cheapest locations may require a prearranged escort because they don't have any way to restrict access on the floors, but by the time you get to 1/4 rack scale you should expect 24/7 access as standard.
I hope emerging research that divides the autism spectrum into four phenotypes[0] eventually gets recognized and incorporated into research like this. I still believe comparing the entire spectrum at once is the wrong approach, especially since the variants of autism express so differently.
As an example: I'm autistic and I learn inside-out, building larger new concepts out of smaller existing ones; those with Asperger's on the other paw, learn outside-in instead, breaking down larger existing concepts into smaller new ones; both are part of the "autism spectrum", but differ very fundamentally.
Given that the origin of "autism" is simply "thinking that differs from usual", there's no evidence that there is a single underlying cause to find, nor that generalizations across the entire spectrum will reveal much of anything other than coincidence.
I believe we need to individualize new research to the variants that we now know exist, because otherwise we will continue to all-but erase anything that isn't common to the entire spectrum.
> As an example: I'm autistic and I learn inside-out, building larger new concepts out of smaller existing ones; those with Asperger's on the other paw, learn outside-in instead, breaking down larger existing concepts into smaller new ones; both are part of the "autism spectrum", but differ very fundamentally.
This is a really interesting observation - can you expand on this a bit more, please? How did you first notice this distinction?
When, for example, learning a new concept in math or physics, what would outside-in look like vs inside out? Would you characterise neurotypical learning in one way or the other?
> This is a really interesting observation - can you expand on this a bit more, please? How did you first notice this distinction?
A year or two ago I interacted with someone with Asperger's, and since that very rarely happens I hit a sort of uncanny valley with the way they wrote to me, because their writing gave me a lot of neurotypical vibes, but at the same time seemed a lot more logical and structured than actual neurotypical writing. They seemed to be building their writing and ideas out of logical tokens and constructs in an evidently autistic way, but so much of their writing looked neurotypical.
It was sort of like Scratch blocks, where they learned general templates for sentences and paragraphs from neurotypicals, and then substituted entire phrases at a time within them to achieve the desired communication. So while their templates and phrases were learned mostly from neurotypicals, the structure of their communication and usage of it still had a sort of logical system to it.
They remembered concepts by the phrases that had been used to explain it to them in the past, and reused those phrases verbatim, slotting them into the templates wholesale. They didn't fully parse everything like I do, they only broke things down as needed to create new logical tokens for new concepts. It's very interesting and fascinating. I mostly only know the one experience I've had, since I didn't get to speak to them again, but I've started to see it absolutely everywhere since.
> When, for example, learning a new concept in math or physics, what would outside-in look like vs inside out?
I can only guess, because I haven't interviewed someone with Asperger's about this, but I know what it looks like for me and I can guess what it could look like for them (at least for the purposes of the outside-in analogy).
For me, when I learn a new concept in math or physics, I want to build an intuition about that concept so I can come up with strategies about it and involving it. This actually mostly does not consist of algorithms related to the concept, but rather more of a fundamental intuition about the nature of the concept itself; what shape it is, what holes it fills, what types and classes of things it can do or model, etc. With this I can come up with my own algorithms on the fly, and also know when the concept might be relevant.
An outside-in learner, however, would be different. I have very little experience with the learning process or even with the execution process, but it's likely that they would not bother to break the concept all the way down and try to fully fundamentally understand it. Rather they might look to learn examples of it, algorithms and procedures relating to it, and ways to prove that their approach is correct. It would be less of "understand all the intricacies of this thing and every property it could possibly have and integrate that with everything else" and more of "fill a mental knowledge base with examples, applications, procedures relating to this thing".
> Would you characterise neurotypical learning in one way or the other?
I would not. I don't mean to imply that neurotypical logic is inherently more simplistic or inferior to autistic logic, but to me it seems far more like rote learning. They don't necessarily seem to break things down to understand the smaller details, but they don't really commit full logical tokens to memory either. They seem somewhere in the squishy middle, where they can be good at doing something that they don't understand at all, just because they practiced a lot, and they can be terrible at doing something that they understand far better, just because they're not practiced.
I've found that given I understand something well enough, I can perform better on the first try than some others who practice. That's not really a reliable indicator of much, but for me a lot comes from similar sources of truth, whereas it seems for a neurotypical they don't always necessarily organize or canonicalize their learnings, so their knowledge can be completely disjoint in areas that could totally be combined.
This is all just my personal experience/opinion though, fwiw.
You could argue that outside-in versus inside-out is more of a temperament than it is a form of neurodivergence. For example, what you're describing is basically typical of how Keirsey describes concrete versus abstract reasoning in Please Understand Me. And it could be kind of alienating to be the one abstract reasoner in a group of concrete reasoners and if you believe his statistics it's kind of likely that you'll find yourself in that situation a lot because you gravitate toward the abstract rather than the concrete/operational aspects of a concept.
I generally do the same thing when I'm learning something, and I have to fully understand a concept and then attack the concrete applications of the concept. But I've also learned how to go the other way when I need to because much of the technical writing I encounter is written for people who need a lot of examples but don't follow abstract concepts. So I've internalized building up the abstract concept from the concrete examples.
> You could argue that outside-in versus inside-out is more of a temperament than it is a form of neurodivergence.
I believe it is both. You can go against your brain's coding with some extra work; somewhat like an adapter, I suppose. Your brain just still is coded a certain way natively.
> or example, what you're describing is basically typical of how Keirsey describes concrete versus abstract reasoning in Please Understand Me. And it could be kind of alienating to be the one abstract reasoner in a group of concrete reasoners and if you believe his statistics it's kind of likely that you'll find yourself in that situation a lot because you gravitate toward the abstract rather than the concrete/operational aspects of a concept.
This is very interesting. I've never heard of concrete/abstract reasoners before, but that does sound similar to what I've described. Thank you for the book.
> much of the technical writing I encounter is written for people who need a lot of examples but don't follow abstract concepts.
Yes! I love using examples to illustrate applications of an abstract concept, but I always explain the concept first. When the concept isn't explained first, I am sad. :(
> So I've internalized building up the abstract concept from the concrete examples.
> Plenty of engineering blogs, for example, share that sort of tokenized writing style, like for instance this one I recently noticed
Hi, I'm the author of that blog. Can you tell me more about what you mean by a "tokenized writing style"? One confounding factor is that I have a PhD, so I was trained for many years to write in a formalized, academic style. Also, I deliberately put a lot of "signpost" phrases in my posts, since I'm writing about complex subjects and want to avoid readers getting lost.
It's difficult to explain, but it's similar to the Scratch blocks idea that I mentioned up above. To me, a "tokenized writing style" is one that looks composed of nested layers of structure, not exactly grammatical structure but more logical structure. It certainly appears that a lot of the specific patterns could have come from training, but regardless of what, if you don't have Asperger's, you certainly do a good job imitating it :)
I have been diagnosed with Aspergers not long before it became part of ASD. I don't really understand why you are disassociating yourself with Aspergers which was another word for "high-function" autism and is still used interchangeably.
Reading from what you have written - that is part of my experience, though I don't think that it has anything to do with being Aspergers or even being on a spectrum, but being alone a lot and educating myself a lot - that basically is what "smart people" in general are doing - including NT. Yes, there are a lot of people that do not actively learn, but that can apply to Aspergers as well as NT. That is not the reason for differences.
Just to save space and not to create another comment - "four phenotypes" are not new attempt to classify. To me it looks like rewording - before there was already quite clear distinction between Aspergers and Aspergers&ADHD combination - both of them are part of "high functioning autism", and they behave wildly differently(people with Aspergers&ADHD part might not be recognized as "weird" but even as NT - by other people). They were all part of spectrum anyway. And from reading the paper it seems, that they have made 2 other types for what was "low functioning" autism.
Apparently putting them all in ASD was not helping for bureaucracy - especially when it comes down to finances - it is quite important in Trumps USA and might be also for other countries.
> I don't really understand why you are disassociating yourself with Aspergers which was another word for "high-function" autism and is still used interchangeably.
People do often use the terms interchangeably, but that's not how I use it. I use Asperger's to refer to a specific place on the autism spectrum; I don't think there's a better term I can use right now. That place is as opposed to the three other phenotypes. I don't claim to know for absolute certain that the four phenotypes are correct, but I do believe strongly in the idea, because my lived experience appears to match with it closely. It has helped me understand others better, for sure. (Or at least to believe that I do)
I say I don't have Asperger's because I seem to function differently than others who do have it. When I encounter it, I find it interesting, because it's clearly different than how I function and that makes me curious. That makes me think I don't have it, because if I did, then surely I would be able to study myself to learn more about it, yet so far I can only speculate about how my experience must be different.
> Reading from what you have written - that is part of my experience, though I don't think that it has anything to do with being Aspergers or even being on a spectrum, but being alone a lot and educating myself a lot - that basically is what "smart people" in general are doing - including NT. Yes, there are a lot of people that do not actively learn, but that can apply to Aspergers as well as NT. That is not the reason for differences.
Of course neurotypical and neurodivergent people alike can educate themselves and learn. The difference is in how they learn, and what type of learning is most effective for them. Even among autistics, the most effective or natural style of learning can greatly differ. This is also why many schools have entirely different classes for autistic people, because the style of learning that works best for neurotypicals may not be as effective for an autistic person.
What I think has to do with Asperger's is in the type of knowledge that is most useful to you, and the style of learning that is most useful to you. I don't actually know this for sure, but I believe that for any given concept, you would probably use different aspects than I would to understand it. That means if I told you everything that I believe is most essential to my own understanding of something you don't understand yet, you still might not get it, because you might have different requirements to understand that thing, and you might find different things most essential to that understanding.
Of course, in some ways this is true for everyone, for example if my most essential pieces of knowledge relate to or build upon other of my knowledge that you also do not have. But in other ways this is only true across different neurotypes, such as Asperger's and neurotypical, or Asperger's and another type of autism, because generally each phenotype appears to share a largely similar type of logical structure. For Asperger's it appears to be those nested tokens, for myself it seems to be a linear stream of thought or reasoning, for some of my friends it appears to be based on context and metadata, and for others of my friends it appears to be based on emotions and lore (sort of hard to explain). That makes four, and every single autistic person I know or encounter seems to fit into one of those boxes. Sometimes it takes longer to tell for sure, but I believe that I eventually always can.
> Just to save space and not to create another comment - "four phenotypes" are not new attempt to classify. To me it looks like rewording - before there was already quite clear distinction between Aspergers and Aspergers&ADHD combination - both of them are part of "high functioning autism", and they behave wildly differently(people with Aspergers&ADHD part might not be recognized as "weird" but even as NT - by other people). They were all part of spectrum anyway. And from reading the paper it seems, that they have made 2 other types for what was "low functioning" autism. Apparently putting them all in ASD was not helping for bureaucracy - especially when it comes down to finances - it is quite important in Trumps USA and might be also for other countries.
It's entirely possible that Asperger's without ADHD is, well, Asperger's, while Asperger's with ADHD is actually not Asperger's, and is rather another autism phenotype instead. To be honest, I've never heard of Asperger's + ADHD, while I've heard of ADHD for all three of the other types, so maybe that's the difference you are observing. I can't know for sure though.
I believe low-functioning autistics may happen to have brain defects or severe trauma or something else that disables them. I don't believe they are fundamentally different from other autistics in terms of the phenotype. I believe that a lot of the time, whether someone is called low-functioning is based primarily on how well they are able to function and how much support they need, and not really specific indicators that would indicate phenotype. Similar to how the criteria for ASD can diagnose autism, but not specifically Asperger's or specifically my type. I know that all four of the phenotypes certainly can be high-functioning, so that leads me to believe that low-functioning may be on top of that, and not a separate category altogether.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with this -- in fact he has been trying to shut down government benefits for autism (and for other things he views as a disability), so it's hard for me to believe that he cares about better classifying them when he seems to want them dead.
> As an example: I'm autistic and I learn inside-out, building larger new concepts out of smaller existing ones; those with Asperger's on the other paw, learn outside-in instead, breaking down larger existing concepts into smaller new ones; both are part of the "autism spectrum", but differ very fundamentally.
To me this just sounds like the interaction of autism with other variances in neurotype. You can also reasonably categorise non-autistic people into people who learn outside-in and those who learn inside-out.
I want to say that cognitive strategy doesn't meaningfully impact what I'm talking about, but I struggle to define where the line is between cognitive strategy and neural architecture. It appears to me that different neurotypes have different ways of learning and processing information, and that makes for different most effective strategies, and that becomes evident in how the learnings are eventually used. There's a sort of wavy abstract concept called "derived meaning" that sort of helps explain this, but that's even less understood. But basically, how I understand it is that different neurotypes have different frameworks of derived meaning; when they learn something, they persist differing parts of it and in different ways; this results in a different organizational structure, different forms and mechanisms of association between different ideas, different approaches of using the ideas, and so on. I don't know for sure that there isn't a non-autistic neurotype that learns outside-in like in Asperger's ... but if one were discovered it'd probably become part of the autism spectrum for being so uncommon. :D
Inside-out versus outside-in also doesn't really have to do with the order of learning. I could very easily learn the basic metadata of an overall system before I start diving into the details. Black boxes are very common for me to avoid going too deep into research or reverse-engineering rabbitholes (or to paper over an inability for me to learn more about inner workings). It has to do with the structure of learning. For me to model something as a black box, I'll accept that, though there may be parts inside it, I don't need to care how they're implemented. For someone with Asperger's to model something as a black box ... I imagine they already do that by default. How much of that is cognitive strategy or not, I can't really tell, but outside-in learning seems to prefer to pick up entire pieces that have a desired value rather than digging into every detail contributing to that value. While I could mimic that or show behavior that resembles something like that, it's just not really how my brain works on a fundamental level like that? I don't really know how to draw the line. You do raise a decent point.
> This is more or less not true. If it doesn't hinder a person in any aspect of their life, they don't fit the DSM-V criteria for a diagnosis.
You're confusing autism itself with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Autism Spectrum Disorder indeed has to do with difficulties ("deficits" / "impairment"). Autism itself on the other paw is a physical, quantifiable difference in neural architecture. Autistic people think and work differently, whether they have been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder or not.
It's also worth noting that autism is not the only neurodivergence, it's just the most widely known one (IIRC).
For reference, my copy of the DSM-5 states the following diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder: (sub-items elided)
> A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text): [...]
> B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text): [...]
> Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).
> D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of current functioning.
> E. These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.
The autism in this study is ASD. This study doesn't have that much to say about people who don't qualify for a diagnosis, since they would not have qualified to take part in it.
But yes, if you are saying ASD (and not autism itself, as you quoted from the article) is by definition a hindrance, I would be inclined to agree with you, for the reasons you've outlined.
A JVM agent is able to instrument and modify running JVM applications. Stuff like debugging, hot patching, etc rely on this. You used to be able to tell the JVM to listen on a port where you could connect debuggers (agents) dynamically at runtime, but that was deemed a security issue so now you can only declare specific agents at launch time through command-line flags.
I love GNOME Wayland; it has some of the best support for trackpad gestures of any Linux desktop experience I've ever tried. On the other paw though, client-side decorations are not the way to go on Linux, and I'm still incredibly frustrated that they insist on not even supporting server-side decorations at all.
Client-side decorations are for apps that are designed specifically for a certain desktop experience; server-side decorations are for compatibility with the many millions of apps that already exist!! (And for anything cross-platform / cross-DE.)
Apple gets away with it because macOS is largely monolithic, and doesn't really have swappable desktop experiences. GNOME does not get away with it because they're just one competitor in a large landscape of Linux and they should want to be compatible with Linux applications in general, not only GNOME applications.
My biggest beef with client-side decorations is that they're not optional. For those of us using tiling window managers those decorations are totally superfluous and only take up space, especially since the Gnome folks seem to have decided that every UI element needs to have lebensraum by adding huge areas of white space around them. I want my windows densely populated and I want lots of them on my screen because I'm using a COMPUTER - not a PHONE - with a LARGE SCREEN and a pointing device. I do not need to be able to fat-finger those buttons, I have an accurate pointing device with which I control a pointy cursor with which I can accurately hit single pixels if needed. Now I need to LD_PRELOAD some library to get rid of those stupid unneeded decorations, I need to find the current iteration of the compact Adwaita theme (for as long as that is still possible...) and I otherwise need to FIGHT the software as if I were running some proprietary blob of malware from the Fruit Factory or from Redmond. Blegh, so much wasted time and effort.
reply