Director of UX here, we do want to integrate a trace viewer soon. We actively talking to Uber to find ways of directly reusing their Jäger components. Still considering other options too. Will check out your project!
I will go a step further by stating that metrics, logs and traces are very similar and should be treated as such in a unique platform. Leveraging these 3 sources of data in a micro-services world is more than needed for troubleshooting, documentation and monitoring.
Right now I'm using Prometheus (metrics) + Jaeger (traces) + Fluentd&Clickhouse (logs) + Grafana to render all of that. It's not that easy to correlate data but I'm getting there (with tricky queries in Grafana panels and custom Grafana sources). A PoC about displaying traces in a nice way: https://github.com/alexvaut/OpenTracingDiagram.
It makes me think that there are, at least, 2 ways to move forward:
- What can we do about this situation we are in ? Is it a problem that Technology can solve (I'm thinking about startup in the privacy field) or it's more political and in this case it will take years to fix.
- What can we do about the other fields where we still have some power ? Like Smart Assistant, self driving cars with AI. Someday we are going to wake up again and realize that again someone used one our of weakness and abused it.
It will again return against ourselves by restraining our freedom and/or make us more dumb.
I'm sure history has many examples about that global behavior: "change for the worst, acknowledge it, repeat".
What is the way to avoid taking that direction again ? I'm not sure education is the answer nor politic or technology... I'm out of answers...
Thanks for the links, so from Bruce Schneier, the problem needs to be taken care of by citizens (politic) like it was done for many industries (car, food, pharma...). Except that this is going to be much more complex in the information era where everything is a computer. Hence there is a need to have tech people in the public sector to help decisions to be wisely made. Enforcing the rules is the only way to make the industry to change, in this case, in terms of security and privacy.
However I tend to think I have more power as a consumer than as a citizen. I spent dollars everyday while I vote every 2 years. It seems that since there is no other way, the last resort is to go through the political way. I'm happy we have governments but still, I'm convinced there is a way to convince consumer. Do you ?
I personally agree with Schneier. I don't see how BigTech can be made to respect privacy given the current status quo and the data wars. I think regulation and government intervention is very much necessary at this point.
In some instances, BigTech, BigTelco, and govts have incentives aligned (surveillance and censorship), so its paramount for folks part of the tech industry to help steer the conversation and laws.
To be honest I don't see the majority of developers interested into Category Theory. We have to hand it on a silver plate by solving some problems to show it is useful. It doesn't sound pragmatic enough for people to even start looking at it.
One way I'm thinking is to extract "patterns" automatically from their code. Then, it enables to write code review, give advises, pointers, find pattern duplication, common ground vocabulary... I'm sure structuring automatically the code from CT point of view can be helpful.
Disclaimer:
Few years ago, I felt in love with theory category and more precisely the sketches (from Ehresmann). I linked Machine Learning and Category Theory [1] by automatically mapping data structure and algorithm definitions together (input/output and operations between) in order to be able to run any algorithm on any set of data. Then I introduced an heuristic based on Kolmogorov complexity to find the best model (algorithm output) to summarize the input data. Loved it !
My mathematical training is mainly from the category theory school of thought (more specifically the set theory inspiring category theory school of thought) and I have to say that I find it difficult to move from category theory to functional programming. I think it's because mathematics is more about a way of thinking than about the tools.
For example, reading category theory introductions meant for programmers to me is confusing, even though I know the mathematics already! I still need to get around to Milewski's book which looks to be dually useful as "functional programming for category theorists".
I remember someone back then wrote a script to scrape Google Maps data and make it viewable on the GP2X, so you'd have offline portable maps. This was in 2007 or so, before smartphones became mainstream (not that as a student I could have afforded one anyway, or a data plan for that matter).
Agreed 100%, I worked with legacy code at different stages: 1 to 2 years: very little of structure but still velocity matters a lot, complexity is not very high; 2 to 5 years: first customers. copy/paste designs and complexity arise; 5 to 10 years: I observed 2 different trends, software where refactoring happened, product is still not in a very good shape but it is still ok and the others, the garbage product with millions of lines: global variables, If/then/else copy/paste design, doesn't scale, broken everytime for no obvious reasons. It's going to take years to stabilise without too much churn. So everytime I'm working on a project, I pledge managers, devs to allocate time to refactor and follow those patterns, implement unit tests etc... everytime at whatever stage, after sometime the team realizes the benefit. So yes, without a doubt, good design patterns are keys to make our dev lifes as easy as possible. And the SOLID ones are definitely my favourites.
Thanks for saying this, it's especially strange to see so much people disparage SOLID as if they have outgrown the concept because it was invented some years ago.
What about returning refillable standard cups ? You return them dirty, starbucks/mac do wash them and everytime you want a coffee you get a clean one. It existed in France for glass bottles in the last century, it's still like that in Belgium for beers (and works very well). I don't see any problem to apply it for coffee. You can even think of little stickers of the brand from where you get your coffee, those stickers will be removed in the washing process. So if the big names can agree on few cup design/material and a washing process/logistic, they will have a very durable cup!
This sort of thing seems to be getting more common and I don't know why. Lots of software websites without a single screenshot. Yet a photo/screenshot can often tell you more than all the text.
I'm guessing it's because they haven't actually got anything yet. They have 2 images on their front page with the number of cups saved, and they're different amounts. They even use stock images of paper cups in one of the photos instead of their own cup.
I use a keep cup. Its similar to a gas station coffee cup but pretty easy to clean and is light weight. It has a nice little lip cover to prevent spillage when I'm carrying it around. Its also helped around the house with dishes. Its my coffee cup and its easy to move around. I always keep it close by.
For France, I'm pretty sure that bottles (coca-cola and beer bottles) are reused in bars, with the same delivery bringing the full bottles taking the empty ones away.
Sounds kind of like Loop[0]. You get metal containers that you send back when you want a refill, and they sanitize them for you. They seem to be planning to stock more than just food, like mouthwash/hair products.
As far as I'm aware, the most the EU has done is look closely at doing it (most recently in 2018). One could argue that Lightning ports are better (particularly when compared to micro usb), and Apple seems to be slowly switching to usb-c. A standard charger would a. prohibit fast charging technologies or b. "pick the winner" with respect to such technologies. It would almost certainly slow or halt the use of newer fast charging technologies, higher bandwidth connections, etc. as they were created.
I understand bottles are different, but I felt a bit of a need to mention what a bad idea the phone charger thing was. "Design by committee" is a pejorative for a reason. Also, knowing governments, they would do something crazy like mandate the standard soda cup to be small (see NYC).
One slightly worse but standard charger is a better situation than loads of incompatible chargers especially when you consider environmental impact. My main concern would be avoiding blocking progress where a new standard is built which is better but we can't move over to it because of regulation.
That's only true of you prioritize minimization of e-waste over personal convenience, which most (including me) do not. The regulation delay is exactly the problem: had politicians standardized micro-usb, we would still be on it rather than usb-c.
In Australia, the laws refer to the Australian Standards (ie. AS3000 for the electrical code). These are updated as necessary with out an act of parliament.
Regulation delay is a feature here, as we don't need a new standard every couple of years.
No one in America needs a new standard either. Literally no piece of gear I own has usb-c, except for one on my laptop which is not the primary charging port and I do not ever use (due to the traditional lineup of ports being available).
I get switching can be a pain, but most people (the people regulation is crafted to cover) do not upgrade on the schedule of many tech enthusiasts. Consumers are also keeping devices progressively longer as time goes by.
I'm still happy with micro-usb, usb-a, hdmi, etc. for now. People do not switch out devices all at once, and it seems that forcing them to do so would create waste.
Lastly, how do they enforce it? Any one can go on amazon.com and buy a non-standard charger and a plug adapter, right? I would imagine those who do want things like quick charge would just buy the stuff.
It seems like we are still in a transition period. Every host device I have like my laptop and phone uses usb c and every accessory like my headphones and bike lights charge on micro usb even though they are new models. I'm guessing the reason for this may be that microusb is cheaper and offers no downsides when only used for charging.
The correct approach there would have been telling the industry to get their shit together and agree on one standard (and then mandate that, not "that or an adapter" like what they let Apple get away with), under the threat that otherwise they'll make a standard for them.
That's… exactly what the EU did, minus the legal mandate or adapter ban steps?
> In June 2009, many of the world's largest mobile phone manufacturers signed an EC-sponsored memorandum of understanding (MoU), agreeing to make most new data-enabled mobile phones marketed in the European Union compatible with a to-be-specified common EPS. All signatories agreed to develop a common specification for the EPS "to allow for full compatibility and safety of chargers and mobile phones."
> […]
> The original Common EPS memorandum of understanding expired at the end of 2012. The Commission reported at the time that all of the fourteen MoU signatories, "have met their obligations under the MoU." Eight of the original MoU signatories signed a 2013 Letter of Intent (LoI) to extend the 2009 MoU another year and, in 2014, five of those companies (Apple, Blackberry, Huawei, Samsung and Sony) again signed a second Letter of Intent, effectively extending the MoU through the end of 2014.
Doing "exactly that" but minus the legal mandate or adapter ban is like making "exactly" a cup of coffee but without the coffee or water. And then throwing the cup out 5 years ago, too.
Without the legal mandate and adapter ban, they might as well have done nothing. To this day, there are two common connectors for Android phones (Micro USB and USB C), a different connector for iPhones (Lightning), and proprietary connectors for most feature phones.
I would argue that the industry do this already. On the part of Apple, lightning was undoubtedly better than micro-usb, and switching immediately to usb-c would arguably create more e-waste. Also, Apple is probably more sustainable than many other companies.
As the owner of several Apple devices with 30-pin connectors, which I replaced with devices with Lightning connectors, which it seems I will have to replace with devices with USB-C connectors in a few years, I would have been happier if Apple never invented either of those proprietary connectors and just went from micro-USB to USB-C like most of its competitors.
One could also build a business making a printer that prints the company labels on the glass but washes off during the cleaning process. Water based paint or something environmentally friendly. So they could still differentiate their products at the store.
Cups seem like they’d be easy enough to clean. Travel coffee cup lids are another story. I have a hard time cleaning mine, and I’m only concerned about cleaning out my own germs.
I would be concerned about what horrible things a person might do to those cups outside the restaurant. Perhaps this is unfounded, but I assume this would require commercial dish washers to be upgraded (which I'm not opposed to).
