In my first job out of school, I did security work adjacent to fortune 50 banks and the (now defunct) startup I worked at partnered some folks working on Pindrop (https://www.pindrop.com/).
Their whole thing at the time was detecting when it was likely that a support call was coming from a region other than the one the customer was supposed to be in (read: fraudulent) by observing latency and noise on the line (the name is a play on "We're listening closely enough to hear a pin drop".)
Long story short, it's a lot more than just the latency that can clue someone in on the actual source location, and even if you introduce enough false signal to make it hard to identify where you actually are, it's easy to spot that and flag you as fake, even if it's hard to say exactly what the real source is.
The "fancy" hardware is going to get dirt cheap, and in a game where you're asking your customer to trust you with their lives, reliability is going to win. Combine that with time to market, and Tesla feels like a pretty clear "risky bet" at best... Maybe they make it work, but they have to do it before the other companies make lidar cheap, and prices have fallen dramatically over the past 10 years, for much better hardware.
Yeah, that is all reasonable. I think the jury is still out on if sensor fusion can really get far enough up the march of nines (will it work in 99.99 percent of scenarios)? Karpathy has given some good interviews about why Tesla ditched the sensor fusion approach and switched to vision-only.
Same can be said for vision-only, of course. Maybe it won't every quite get to 99.99.
This is some serious rose colored glasses happening here.
If you have a service with a simple compose file, you can have a simple k8s manifest to do the same thing. Plenty of tools convert right between the two (incl kompose, which k8s literally hands you: https://kubernetes.io/docs/tasks/configure-pod-container/tra...)
Frankly, you're messing up by including kustomize or helm at all in 80% of cases. Just write the (agreed on tedious boilerplate - the manifest format is not my cup of tea) yaml and be done with the problem.
And no - you don't need an ingress. Just spin up a nodeport service, and you have the literal identical experience to exposing ports with compose - it's just a port on the machines running the cluster (any of them - magic!).
You don't need to touch an ingress until you actually want external traffic using a specific hostname (and optionally tls), which is... the same as compose. And frankly - at that point you probably SHOULD be thinking about the actual tooling you're using to expose that, in the same way you would if you ran it manually in compose. And sure - arguably you could move to gateways now, but in no way is the ingress api deprecated. They very clearly state...
> "The Ingress API is generally available, and is subject to the stability guarantees for generally available APIs. The Kubernetes project has no plans to remove Ingress from Kubernetes."
Plenty of valid complaints for K8s (yaml config boilerplate being a solid pick) but most of the rest of your comment is basically just FUD. The complexity scale for K8s CAN get a lot higher than docker. Some organizations convince themselves it should and make it very complex (debatably for sane reasons). For personal needs... Just run k3s (or minikube, or microk8s, or k3ds, or etc...) and write some yaml. It's at exactly the same complexity as docker compose, with a slightly more verbose syntax.
Honestly, it's not even as complex as configuring VMs in vsphere or citrix.
> And no - you don't need an ingress. Just spin up a nodeport service, and you have the literal identical experience to exposing ports with compose - it's just a port on the machines running the cluster (any of them - magic!).
Might need to redefine the port range from 30000-32767. Actually, if you want to avoid the ingress abstraction and maybe want to run a regular web server container of your choice to act as it (maybe you just prefer a config file, maybe that's what your legacy software is built around, maybe you need/prefer Apache2, go figure), you'd probably want to be able to run it on 80 and 443. Or 3000 or 8080 for some other software, out of convenience and simplicity.
Depending on what kind of K8s distro you use, thankfully not insanely hard to change though: https://docs.k3s.io/cli/server#networking But again, that's kind of going against the grain.
If you just want to do development, honestly it's probably better to just use kubectl port-forward (ex - map 3000, or 8080, on your machine to any service/pod you'd like).
As for grabbing 443 or 80, most distros support specifying the port in the service spec directly, and I don't think it needs to be in the range of the reserved nodeports (I've done this on k3s, worked fine last I checked, which is admittedly a few years ago now).
As you grow to more than a small number of exposed services, I think an ingress generally does make sense, just because you want to be able to give things persistent names. But you can run a LONG way on just nodeports.
And even after going with an ingress - the tooling here is pretty straight forward. MetalLB (load balancer) and nginx (ingress, reverse proxy) don't take a ton of time or configuration.
As someone who was around when something like a LAMP stack wasn't "legacy", I think it's genuinely less complicated to setup than those old configurations. Especially because once you get it right in the yaml once, recreating it is very, very easy.
No - because most users also don't check install size on games, and unlike renting overpriced storage from a cloud provider, users paid a fixed price for storage up front and aren't getting price gouged nearly as badly. So it's a trade that makes sense.
Both entrants in the market are telling you that "install size isn't that important".
If you asked the player base of this game whether they'd prefer a smaller size, or more content - the vast majority would vote content.
If anything, I'd wager this decision was still driven by internal goals for the company, because producing a 154gb artifact and storing it for things like CI/CD are still quite expensive if you have a decent number of builds/engineers. Both in time and money.
You are saying, that most users don't check install size of their games. Which I am not convinced of, but might even be true. Lets assume this to be true for the moment. How does this contradict, what I stated? How does users being uninformed or unaware of technical details make it so that suddenly cramming the user's disk is "caring" instead of "not caring"? To me this does not compute. Users will simply have a problem later, when their TBs of disk space have been filled with multiple such disk space wasters. Wasting this much space is user-hostile.
Next you are talking about _content_, which most likely doesn't factor in that much at all. Most of that stuff is high resolution textures, not content. It's not like people are getting significantly more content for bigger games. It is graphics craze, that many people don't even need. I am still running around with 2 full-HD screens, and I don't give a damn about 4k resolution textures. I suspect that a big number of users doesn't have the hardware to run modern games fluently at 4k.
"There is a limited amount of time, money, and effort that will be spent on any project. Successful enterprises focus those limited resources on the things that matter most to their customers. In this case, disk usage in the ~150gb range did not matter much in comparison to the other parts of the game, such as in-game content, missions, gameplay, etc."
We know this, because the game had a very successful release, despite taking 150gb to install.
I'm not saying they should have filled that 100 extra gb with mission content - I'm implying they made the right call in focusing their engineering manpower on creating content for the game (the ACTUAL gameplay) and not on optimizing storage usage for assets. That decision gave them a popular game which eventually had the resources to go optimize storage use.
It's not even about graphics it's about load time on HDD. Which turns out didn't benefit all that much.
I can see customers being much more annoyed at a longer load time than a big install size as this has become pretty common.
I mean.. A few years ago, 1TB SSDs were still the best buy and many people haven't ugpraded still, and wasthing 15% of your total storage on just one game is still a pain for many.
Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this.
1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use.
4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work.
---
Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made for commercial gain and not private use.
This for the actual work, definitely not for transformative works like llm output. So a ghibli style image of me is fine legally, whether I sell it or not.
I agree, the classifications are pretty solid when followed and I'm with you on class 2 being the right pick for most people - But I'd argue they're too complicated.
I think it's also a social issue right now, there's very little general information provided to bikers (ex - most people don't even know these classifications exist, and can't remember them if they do), and not a large enough chunk of the population is biking yet to get a general consensus on "acceptable" behavior.
Couple that with low enforcement, and it makes sense a fair number of people are just clueless.
---
Just simple things like "bike speed limit" signs on trails/paths would probably help a lot.
I have a class 3 ebike, and I'd still 100% prefer to ride it on a trail with a speed limit of 20mph instead of having trying to mingle with cars on even moderatly busy streets.
The laws should let bikers understand the desired behavior, and allow them to self-regulate.
Especially given that this isn't in the same risk category as larger vehicles (e-bikes are half the weight of mopeds, and 28mph is very different than 45)
Then give folks tickets. They're too useful to go away - we'll get it figured out.
I think the MPH limit for ebike classification makes sense. But why do they need a 750W limit? Whats the harm in a motor putting out 3000W to get a loaded cargo bike up a steep hill at 8 MPH.
> a motor putting out 3000W to get a loaded cargo bike up a steep hill at 8 MPH
Probably two reasons to avoid this. Practically, it's more expensive because not only do you have a 3kW motor but everything else must handle the increased demands. It just gets more expensive all around just for a niche case equivalent of "everyone needs a truck to carry 16 sheets of drywall and 12 2x4s".
The second is that regulators were reasonably pragmatic. Top speed, peak power, and weight are good proxies for safety, rather than having to regulate every aspect of a bike's operation like with cars. Bikes are spending most of their time on flat ground on city streets where huge power/torque are not just unnecessary, they're dangerous. Already plenty of e-bikes are going all out (governors are easily bypassed) on sidewalks and bike lanes where the others have 100W "motors". In my otherwise very civilized part of the world, every day I ride I almost get run over by assholes on full blown motorcycles speeding on the bike lane because it's faster. I have never, ever seen one get a fine. Nobody can do enforcement of safety at rider level especially for very lightly regulated and unregistered vehicles.
> Nobody can do enforcement of safety at rider level especially for very lightly regulated and unregistered vehicles.
I don't particularly buy this. I think we've spent very little time and effort actually trying.
I also think that the lax enforcement as it currently stands is a pretty practical take... My read is that ebikes (even the class 3s) aren't actually out there killing people in crashes all that often.
Of the folks who are dying on bikes... the majority of the deaths are still happening due to collisions with motor vehicles. The second largest cause of death is the rider dying due to lack of helmet usage coupled with the higher speeds.
---
Basically - I agree we should improve social patterns for not being a dick on a fast bike in mixed-use spaces.
But if we're talking about actual benefit to safety... the problem is still the cars and not the bikes. At least for now (again - it's shifting because e-bikes are just useful as all get out).
Your first point feels like it should easily be handled by regular market forces, ie no one can produce one in a price range anyone would want to buy.
I would suggest that the only good reason to have a peak power limit in law on the engine is so that if you unlock it/chip it you can't blast off at 60mph. But at that point you're breaking the speed limit either way, so I'm still not convinced a peak power limit is reasonable.
I have a powered bike that limits the speed to the lawful limit, but the engine has 500w instead of 250w, meaning my bike is better at getting up hills than my wife's. I don't think this should be illegal, and if I want to pay for a stronger engine, that is reasonably up to me.
That nobody is enforcing the speed limit on bike lanes is an enforcement issue, and it doesn't get solved by having unnecessarily tangential laws. And I'm certainly not a "deregulate everything" person.
> should easily be handled by regular market forces
I think we've heard this blurb so many times it should be a joke to be ridiculed by now. It usually prefaces a story about some abusive, exploitative action.
> But at that point you're breaking the speed limit either way, so I'm still not convinced a peak power limit is reasonable.
That's why I said that enforcement at rider level is impossible. The burden to check if someone removed some governor is so high that it might as well not be regulated in any way. Or you heavily strengthen and give an even broader mandate to LEO, and I hear that's what everyone wants more of these days.
So the easy way around this is to regulate the manufacturing or sales. You limit the power of the motor, you implicitly limit how fast the bike can realistically go, and how much weight it can carry at speed. This makes things a little bit safer. If you need more, choose a different vehicle. You don't buy a Fiesta and then shout in the wind that it's not allowed to have 18 wheels and carry 35t.
> That nobody is enforcing the speed limit on bike lanes is an enforcement issue, and it doesn't get solved by having unnecessarily tangential laws
I get that you really want something but this isn't an argument. The laws aren't "tangential" they are very much on point, trying to keep a balance between usability and safety faced with practical reality. Not the wishy-washy "the market will handle it" or "I should get it because I want it and anyone stopping me is stupid". The law allows every kind of vehicle for every need, under the appropriate conditions. You just think your conditions for your needs come first. Some people ride like that so the "tangential laws" exist to protect others from them.
The “market handling it” would mean liability lawsuits followed by mandatory liability insurance, with insurers installing telemetry devices on an ebike to decide how much to charge you or even just drop you as an uninsurable risk altogether.
In other words enough people would have to get hit and killed that there would be a huge series of lawsuits. In that scenario those people are still dead.
“The market handling it” is why there are hordes of cars with purposefully loud mufflers blasting past my house at many hours of the day. My state chose to make it illegal to build something like that but it’s perfectly legal to sell the parts. So the market did what the market does.
> The “market handling it” would mean liability lawsuits
Amazon and Temu sell so much illegal and dangerous junk and no lawsuit changed this. People still get hurt or killed by battery fires, malfunctioning products, intoxication with all kinds of chemicals.
> followed by mandatory liability insurance
People complain that they have to wear a helmet. They won't be fine with mandatory liability insurance. The level of bike theft shows that bikes are notoriously untraceable, it's very hard or prohibitively expensive to enforce this.
> with insurers installing telemetry devices on an ebike
Raises costs, requires cloud services and connectivity, and the owner can still hack the antenna off or shield it and the bike is now permanently offline but with no way to detect that on the street.
Amazon and Temu aren't allowed to sell cars, because we still regulate our cars somewhat, so the cars that are sold in America and Australia and other places have to meet certain safety requirements. The manufacturer is also 100% liable for things like recalls or safety defects, regardless of which dealer sold it to you or if you bought car used.
You can say people "won't be fine with mandatory liability insurance". That's what it's "mandatory". If you get caught operating a vehicle without one, you might just well lose your vehicle and have it impounded on the spot, have to pay a hefty fine, and have to prove you have insurance before you're allowed to drive again.
Insurers can and do detect if your telemetry stops transmitting - for example, State Farm offers a substantial discount if you transmit telemetry. If you sign up for this and then yank the device out, they simply charge you a higher rate.
We also have things like "helmet laws". You can't (for example) operate a motorcycle in California without a helmet. If you do, you'll get pulled over and ticketed and are stuck being unable to ride it away until someone either brings you a ticket or you go for a nice long walk and get one yourself, with a high chance your bike gets impounded from the side of the road.
I don't know why the attitude persists that the government can't regulate things and enforce laws. They certainly can.
Sorry but your post is all over the place. It's not nice to introduce random things in a conversation and force anyone who wants to respond to you to address all that randomness.
> I don't know why the attitude persists that the government can't regulate things and enforce laws. They certainly can.
Who said anything about government regulation? The latest part of the thread was about "the market" handling it, you yourself even said "with liability lawsuits", now you talk government regulation which is the opposite of that.
> Amazon and Temu aren't allowed to sell cars
Who said anything about cars? We're talking bicycles and other things people want to stay unregulated. They sell bad products and "the market" didn't handle it, not with lawsuits or regulation or enforcement. So many ebikes were catching fire in my complex while charging that the administration banned even storing ebikes in the underground parking or the individual storage units. The importer of the bikes (Amazon store?) was of course dissolved by that time.
> because we still regulate our cars somewhat
Who said anything about car regulations? That's exactly what people don't want with bicycles. Look at this discussion, people want to pretend even mopeds should still be called "just bikes" so they stay unregulated. The whole point of a bicycle is to be a simple unregulated vehicle with minimal capabilities. Not multi kilowatt motor vehicle that can carry heavy loads up a hill at speeds that most people barely cycle on the flat.
> You can't (for example) operate a motorcycle in California without a helmet.
Who said anything about motorcycles? You can operate a bicycle without a helmet because people weren't fine with mandatory helmet laws. Just like it will happen with "mandatory liability insurance and telemetry" for bikes. It might happen when we all live in a dystopia where everything you do is tracked, or for some bicycles that aren't really bicycles (mopeds and higher categories).
Whoever wants powerful motors or high carrying capacity should stop calling it "a bicycle" and call it a "moped" or "S-Pedelec". These already require insurance and a license plate. There are enough categories here [0] to cover all needs. Pretending everything on 2 wheels is a bicycle does cyclists a disservice and is like calling my car "an umbrella" so I'm allowed to take it everywhere with me.
My opinion is been that 747’s, cars, trucks, bikes, E bikes, an even pedestrians should be regulated on kinetic energy - basically their ability to do harm to others.
My fear is that without it, regulatory arbitrage will turn every inch of land that doesn’t have a building into Death Race 2000. Cars are not allowed on sidewalks to protect friends? No problem - here’s an electric motorcycle disguised as a bicycle. Hi
Doing some quick math, if your bike is using 3kw to climb a reasonably steep (15% grade) hill at 8mph, we can calculate the weight it must be carrying, which ends up being about 1,200lbs
To answer your question, the limit on motor power exists as a proxy for limiting the weight, speed, and acceleration of ebikes within safe limits, since having an ebike charging uphill at 20mph with 500lbs of payload would present actual safety risks. Trying to regulate payload/speed/slope combinations directly has practical problems (police officers don't really want to stop delivery drivers to weight their cargo), while regulating motor power is much simpler.
You don't need 3000W, 1kW is plenty. I have a Yuba Mundo (one of the biggest long-tail cargo bikes) and my Bafang motor tops out around 1kW and it's plenty even for the biggest hills here in Bloomington (which is quite hilly).
The problem I see with the e-bikers is that they just can't ride even at 20 mph. They don't fall off the bike because it moves fast enough but otherwise they are completely inept: break with the rear wheel only, can't stay in the lane, can't corner, don't signal turns, don't warn when passing etc.
20 mph is a moderate speed for a road bike, however, you need to ride a lot to comfortably get to this speed and as a result, when you get there, your skills are adequate. A roadie riding 20+ mph is not going to enter a blind corner in a left lane or skid out trying to maneuver around some trash on the path. Why should we punish people who bike for exercise? It's not like e-bikers are going to wipe much less at 20 mph, your 100 lbs "sauron" without front brakes is going to skid even at 10 mph.
See - I actually think this is a pretty interesting idea. Stool/Urine are fairly solid indicators of personal health in a lot of ways.
But I think this is a product that probably shouldn't be allowed to exist as a standard SaaS/IoT product.
If this was a box I could hook up on my toilet that showed useful info on a screen locally - with zero network access... I'd consider buying.
---
People are really glib about the loss of control relying on someone else's computer brings.
between service enshittification, company death (out of business), privacy concerns, and ownership contention (do I own a device if a company keeps keys to the locks inside it and won't give them to me? I'd argue a solid and resounding "NO")... I don't want anything to do with most modern networked devices in the form of IoT.
Sure. Load the data locally onto an SD card that I can use to share the data with my doctor. Sending the data off to some remote third party via a questionable internet connection is a no-go for me.
In my first job out of school, I did security work adjacent to fortune 50 banks and the (now defunct) startup I worked at partnered some folks working on Pindrop (https://www.pindrop.com/).
Their whole thing at the time was detecting when it was likely that a support call was coming from a region other than the one the customer was supposed to be in (read: fraudulent) by observing latency and noise on the line (the name is a play on "We're listening closely enough to hear a pin drop".)
Long story short, it's a lot more than just the latency that can clue someone in on the actual source location, and even if you introduce enough false signal to make it hard to identify where you actually are, it's easy to spot that and flag you as fake, even if it's hard to say exactly what the real source is.
reply