You're getting downvoted for being needlessly snarky and constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.
Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?
You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?
Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.
> constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.
It is - or at least the leadership is in almost every respect. Politico-turned-economic elites acting as egalitarian champions is par for the last 30 years.
Life-long Californian here.
> Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not?
Massachusetts, for a start, since they don't just talk about what they are going to do. You should visit.
The reality is that the CA representatives routinely declare that they are not going to abide by federal guidelines. Ostensibly, that's the autonomy being referenced.
Totally ignoring the poster's intent and swapping in your own bias as their content is outright trolling. If you don't understand (or can't imagine an interpretation that makes sense) it's rather civil to act in good faith and ask for clarification. SMH
The same thing happened with Obamacare and red states. It basically always happens that states fight the feds at least somewhat when the opposing party is in power.
The Federal government manages 57% of California forests. Another 33% are under private control. Very little of the parts of CA that are ablaze are managed by the State.
Forest management alone at any level cannot prevent these massive fires from happening.
There is this deep, visceral resistance to acknowledging the impact of global climate change and humanity's role in causing it.
It certainly feels trite having to repeat it ad nauseam: global climate change is and will continue to cause extreme and unusual weather events including blizzards, hurricanes, droughts, floods, famines, and wildfires. And yes, it will still get "cold" in the winter -- that does not disprove global warming and the resulting climate changes.
I think climate change is a red herring. Sure, it’s real, and sure, it has some effect on making California’s wildfires more intense. But California’s recent fires are “extreme and unusual” only in their intensity, not their extent. Crunching the numbers from historical burn frequencies before European colonization, California burned a lot more than we’ve allowed it to in the last century, and even in the last few years of “extreme” wildfires, we’re still far from reaching the amount of acreage that historically burned on a yearly basis. Anthropogenic climate change definitely wasn’t why California’s forests experienced a wildfire every couple of decades in the 1500s, and incorrectly blaming the issue on climate change just gives ammunition to opponents of climate change. People in California want to blame the problem on climate change because it absolved them of the need to admit that people really shouldn’t live in the woods, and that most people who live there need to move so that the locations currently containing communities built into woodland can be allowed to burn every 20-30 years.
> Forest management alone at any level cannot prevent these massive fires from happening.
Do you have a source for that?
Even with climate change, surely there are ways to mitigate it with the better forest management everyone is talking about? So that they're no longer "massive" but merely "regular"?
Why does it have to be either/or? Climate change is a global issue, California fires are a local one. And Californians seem to be the most climate-conscious of people in any state.
FWIW I never said it had to be one or the other. But it certainly is the case that one of the two (climate change) is consistently downplayed and dismissed entirely as a major contributing cause. There are of course more contributing factors than just two, such as power lines sparking the fires.
It is not physically possible to manage the amount of forest in CA to the degree that it solves the problem. Help mitigate? Sure. Remember, you're talking something like 30 million acres.
Experts acknowledge that forest management is important and a necessary component. But again...57% is the Federal government and 33% is private.
Logically, there must be some point where the temperature+climate change become so severe that regardless of how much forest is cleared eventually all 30M acres become dry tinder, are consumed, and CA becomes a desert. Global climate change WILL eventually create that situation if not addressed and the amount of change required to cause that situation isn't as high as people might imagine. Some experts think it might already be too late.
“It is not possible to manage the amount of forest in CA to the degree that it solves the problem.... Remember, you’re talking something like 30 million acres.”
Let me DuckDuckGo that for you.
What historic precedent would we have for that? According to this site, clearing forests in the Eastern Part of the US occurred at the rate of 13 sq mi (8320 acres) a day, every day for the fifty year period between 1850 and 1900.
So about 3M acres a year without the benefit of the internal combustion engine. So 10 years to clearcut all the CA forests if we only used axe and mule. I’m guessing a chainsaw and bulldozer could go a bit faster. It’s mountainous terrain so newer custom technology might be needed. And there might be a wee bit of backlash from some ecofolks if we destroyed all the trees, including me.
But physically impossible? That’s hyperbole. In fact, history suggests it wouldn’t be impracticable. It would be expensive. But it could be started today on a pretty significant scale. The science and engineering on how to do it on a sound ecological footing is well-established. The barriers are administrative, logistical, economic and emotional.
Sadly, none of those barriers are overcome by a focus on the climate change debate. There’s only so much attention an eyeball can spend, and if it’s spent on the climate change debate, it isn’t around to focus on fixing any actual current environmental and public health problem.
I think of it as Gore v. Carter. Al Gore argued grand schemes and tons of to-be-mismanaged money for possibly addressing a speculative concern. Jimmy just built another house for a family in need. I miss Jimmy...
And tomorrow, another child dies of lung disease in Delhi...
I do think we're talking past each other though. Perhaps I should have said "practical" instead of "possible". Certainly just about anything is possible with enough money and manpower thrown at it.
I still maintain that forest management alone is insufficient to address the situation. After all, there is little need for forest management if the forest has burnt to a crisp, has become a desert, and no longer exists.
Let's say we devised a perfect management plan, used machine learning to slice the forests up into optimally manageable sections with nearly no chance of spreading uncontrollably. Hell, even throw in robots that automatically "rake" the land.
What happens when the climate becomes such that any segment will burn totally if ignited and all segments will inevitably burn? What happens when the climate becomes so hot that all foliage withers and dies? Problem solved I suppose.
Unfortunately, after decades of lies, propaganda, and lobbying, people (in the U.S. at least) still perceive climate change to be, as you say, a "debate". On that I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since IMO it is not a debate and has instead become one of those uniquely American ideological battlegrounds where one "side" has been convinced that being stubbornly contrarian is a sign of intellectual independence and superiority, despite all facts and data to the contrary.
> The Federal government manages 57% of California forests. Another 33% are under private control. Very little of the parts of CA that are ablaze are managed by the State.
Sure, but you don't have to (control) burn a lot of that. Simply focus on the parts that are where people live, which could perhaps be handled at the local level.
Contract a private crew to do a burn from people's property line to the border of the county: wouldn't this negate issues of state and federal jurisdiction?
You still have to worry about fire brands/embers floating down onto houses, but it would eliminate some of the risks at least.
The person that received the $850k loan spent it, so their balance is then $0 and the bank also has a corresponding entry for -$850k of debt that they are owed and can collect interest on.
The debt is an asset held by the bank until it is paid off, is sold, or is defaulted on.
Person A deposits $1M
Person A $1M, total deposits on hand = $1M
Person B takes $850k loan
Person A $1M, Person B $850k, Person B -$850k debt
Total deposits on hand is STILL only $1M. The combined balances are 1.85M but these are just entries that have no impact on what is actually in the bank's vault/account.
If A and B both ask for their entire balance at that moment the bank will have to go to the overnight window or some other facility to take a short-term loan that it will owe interest on and may need to provide collateral to receive.
In that case the bank's overall balance sheet would be $-850k of debt it owes someone. Because that debt isn't collateralized their rate will probably be higher. This is what led to things like the credit market freeze up that the Fed needed to step in to provide liquidity for. Banks usually borrow from each other not just the Fed, but when shit hits the fan banks might not be willing or able to loan to each other except at extremely high rates.
When the bank repays its loan (perhaps when Person C is paid by B and deposits the money into their account) the situation will unwind and we'll be back to the previous situation.
In real life it's much more complicated because the bank probably has many other types of assets like CLOs, CDOs, etc.
Sometimes the Fed will take assets as collateral for a loan and the bank is expected to repurchase it later at a slightly higher price a/k/a the Repo market
There is more bureaucracy around things like air quality regulations, but in general it's not an "aesthetic" issue causing these problems.
Many of the issues are around "interface" fires where cities butt up against forested areas. Doing a controlled burn of some remote wilderness is fine, but doesn't accomplish much as far as human safety. This is exacerbated by things like the massive drought CA suffered, and other climate change related problems. For example, millions of CA tress which would otherwise be green and healthy have died or are afflicted by disease as a result of climate change, which makes them into tinder that fuels these "conflagrations".
If you do a controlled burn nearby a heavily-populated area, you always run the risk of things going out of control and having unintended consequences. The issue as far as PG&E goes is that their POWER LINES and other equipment have not been properly maintained, which is 100% their responsibility.
They are obligated to clear areas around their lines and make sure everything is operating safely. The Paradise fire wasn't caused by State mismanagement, it was caused by sparking PG&E lines and transformers catching immediately adjacent growth on fire. That's not a State of even a Federal management issue or responsibility.
They are a for-profit corporation though, so other than fines and penalties for their negligence, they have no incentive to do better. They pay out massive salaries, bonuses, and dividends (bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2019/04/16/new-pge-ceo-salary-double-geisha-williams.html), yet their solution to "safety" here is to just shut everything off and act like it's a problem caused by others.
There are many interrelated aspects at play, but insinuating that the State is somehow just a bunch of misguided hippies not following common sense is just silly.
Yikes. This comes across as really arrogant, and speaks to the author's point. What led you to believe anyone needed or wanted your empathy or approval?
Just because someone shares their perspective on a personal experience they had doesn't mean it's an invitation, and doesn't mean they want or need any input.
I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. He's not sharing a personal experience, but rather replying to someone else's with unsolicited advice on how to better go about getting something that was never asked for in the first place.
Ironically (or maybe not), he's recursively "mansplanined" why "mansplaining" is a term that makes him feel insecure. And I say insecure because of the false dichotomy between having empathy and being "suspicious about a hidden agenda" -- that screams "I feel threatened, so let me explain to you why your approach is wrong".
I don't know that you can call it "unsolicited" when the author published this piece to a blog that has a comment section. "Comment" doesn't exclude advice any more than "Comment" excludes praise, sympathy, or any other message that is in compliance with site guidelines (of which, hers has none).
And as might be expected on a forum full of intelligent nitpickers, people can parse and dissect the structure of this sentence to fit any narrative they'd like.
For example, it says it's solving issues attributed to production of livestock...it doesn't outright claim the "meat" itself is healthier for you in terms of nutritional content.
Drive by any factory farm that stretches for hundreds of acres and the stench alone would convince you that reducing things like that would have a positive impact on human health, both directly and indirectly [runoff of feces and chemicals into the environment, use of antibiotics and hormones, climate change, etc]
Wouldn't the point of running in Docker still be to guarantee version, environment, and config compatibility? Just because you run an Elixir app on your local machine doesn't mean it will work worry-free on Prod. Without Docker, you might have a different version of BEAM installed (or none at all), etc.
I think OTP Releases would still depend on the target host being configured correctly and having all dependencies installed that your application needs to run.
Containers are all about consistency of the environment. For example, maybe your Elixir app wants to log out to something like Splunk or DataDog...if those agents aren't installed on the host, it doesn't matter what facilities BEAM provides. Or maybe your app depends on certain configs, libraries, or files being available at specific paths on the system. Things like that would be captured in the image your containers are running and guarantee consistency across machines and environments.
This is a question that I see hotly debated a lot in Elixir circles. BEAM and the Elixir toolset do have a lot of tools that overlap with Docker, so there's a lot of people that advocate for "not bothering" with Docker, while there's other people that are familiar with Docker (and perhaps not as familiar with BEAM) that will tend to use Docker. They both have more or less the same capability to deliver the same functionality.
IMO, in most use cases it makes sense to just use whichever you're more familiar with and will be more productive with. After all, that is the entire point of said tools...
Elixir Releases/Distillery definitely do overlap with Docker deployment techniques. The BEAM also has scaling capabilities that are tantamount to K8s horizontal scaling.
Deployment doesn't overlap. Erlang releases bundle up your code but you still need libraries like openssl, to have a nice bundle that can actually just run anywhere Docker is the way to go.
And horizontal scaling between the two do not overlap either, not sure what you mean. Packing containers (processes) efficiently into a cluster of nodes is not something Erlang does.
Edit: Erlang/OTP does offer fail over for what it calls "distributed applications" but based on a static set of nodes -- not horizontal scaling, anymore than other languages/frameworks do by letting you spawn new instances...
>Deployment doesn't overlap. Erlang releases bundle up your code but you still need libraries like openssl, to have a nice bundle that can actually just run anywhere Docker is the way to go.
And with Docker you still need libraries like, y'know Docker for your code to run.
>Packing containers (processes) efficiently into a cluster of nodes is not something Erlang does.
How much have you used BEAM? It definitely does do that. Scalability is one of Erlang/Elixir's primary benefits, and node clustering is exactly how it does that.
BEAM doesn't do everything containers or a container orchestration system can, but in view of my relatively short time as a regular Erlang programmer (definitely less than 10 years), the spirit of tidepod's point accords with my experience (with a weaker interpretation of his term "node clustering"). BEAM and OTP don't do automatic load distribution between nodes, but can be fashioned to do so easily with application support.
We never used pool. The nodes were mapped onto heterogenous machines sharing the host with a 3rd-party daemon. It's configuration changes even took place through a module update hook written in Erlang itself. We both deployed new code and distributed work "manually" across them entirely on OTP.
[NOTE] It it surprising, or was to me, that there are problems with having a fairly small number of nodes fully connected. I'm lucky enough to have avoided learning this the hard way, but imagine this could serve as a painful backbone to an "Erlang deployment war story".
Sure, you can write it yourself, and probably it is even easier to write in Erlang -- up to a limit due to the issues with distributed Erlang discussed above.
I worry about, and have seen this both in the first hype phase of Erlang a number of years ago, the misconception about what Erlang offers and the resulting frustration, blaming it on the tool and quitting.
Hoping in the chapters I'm working on for https://adoptingerlang.org/docs/production/ I can better explain the benefits of running on k8s (or similar), while also making clear it certainly isn't the right choice in all cases.
Nice synopsis in the docs. I’d suggest that instead of saying k8s and OTP don’t overlap that it’s more that "they don’t completely overlap" Fenn diagram style. That’d be a bit more nuanced answer and help people judge which category they fall into.
There are many cases where having an Erlang cluster and doing ‘naive pooling’ at the application level would get you 80% of what k8s + routing layer would get you. I’m assuming more of an an all Erlang/Elixir environment which many small startups could get by with. Even then Docker + Fargate or whatnot would still simplify deployment. Personally I harbor a secret desire to see if I could replicate part of the k8s interface using Nerves images + some otp tooling. Probably better things to do with my life though. ;)
Also by ‘heart’ are you referring to how ‘epmd’ works or Erlang distribution?
For 'heart' here I'm referring to the heart program that'll start if you run erl with `-heart` http://erlang.org/doc/man/heart.html -- it will restart a down node.
I think part of the confusion is you in general don't need k8s, but when your size and requirements get to a point that k8s makes sense (which arguably lowers as hosted k8s becomes better) it is not in conflict with your also use of Erlang/Elixir.
I find distributed Erlang much nicer in k8s env (I don't have to maintain it obviously) where I get an IP per node, can add a k8s service making it possible to use DNS SRV queries to find all other nodes and letting k8s worry about where pods run and keeping them up.
Plus there is configuration management and consistent storage (resources in etcd).
It's been ruled private companies can discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to provide service to them (ie: a wedding cake). Also been ruled you can discriminate against customers based on religious beliefs (ie: refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control) see “religious refusal” and “conscience protection” laws.
I don't think the main disagreement in this thread is about whether the ban was legal but whether it was moral.
There are the usual side-debates though: the ban being strategically effective and the ban being in-line with how the us constitutions concept of free speech gets interpreted.
Personally I'm not sure to what degree the latter might be relevant for an apparently(?) Filipino company.
Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?
You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?
Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.