The impact is more for bind and fly drones that are FCC approved so you don’t need a HAM license to operate them.

To me it also looks like there are also loopholes you could drive a truck through in terms of importing partially assembled drones that can be assembled by the end user as well as approving components by making their use not exclusive to UAS.

What actually happens remains to be seen because it really depends on what the enforcement actually looks like and how well work arounds work.

I think the real goal of the regulators is to ensure an onshore supply chain for government use and there won’t be a focus on civilian usage.

Isn’t that multi-Paxos? Paxos is leaderless.

Very odd opening sentence.

Lamport simply calls his protocol "Paxos" to refer to both the single‑decree and multi‑decree versions. This is also the case in his other works, e.g., "Fast Paxos" and "Generalized Paxos." The term "Multi‑Paxos" is a later community/industry shorthand for the repeated or optimized use of single‑decree Paxos.

Multi Paxos is commonly used (especially in industry) as short hand for multi decree Paxos (in contrast to single decree Paxos), but “Paxos” most often refers to the family of protocols, all of which are typically implemented with a leader. It is confusing of course because single decree Paxos is used to implement EPaxos (and its derivatives).

It’s worth noting also that Lamport is (supposedly) on the record as having intended “Paxos” to refer to the protocol incorporating the leader optimisation.

> In normal operation, a single server is elected to be the leader, which acts as the distinguished proposer (the only one that tries to issue proposals) in all instances of the consensus algorithm.

because otherwise you don't have a mechanism for ordering; the more basic Paxos protocol only discusses how to arrive at consensus for a single proposal, not how to assign numbers to them in a reasonable way that preserves ordering.

Granted I DIY it all just for entertainment.

Getting into nicer cars and real sports cars was one of the best calls I ever made.

Engineers punish themselves with pretty terrible cars when they could easily afford something that is better in many dimensions.

Do you mean that you sold mutual funds at Vanguard, and used the cash to buy ETFs at eTrade? This means you had to pay tax on capital gains, right? Or is there some trick I don't know about, vis-a-vis converting mutual funds into equivalent ETFs, without a taxable event?

But not all of the funds have an ETF share class. And if you hold Vanguard mutual funds elsewhere, you'd need to transfer them in-kind to Vanguard to convert.

I was spending the money anyways, why not own a copy?

Streaming is primarily just for specific TV shows, subscribe, immediately cancel, watch the series, then resubscribe when something worthwhile exists. I can't stand the bugs, slow interfaces, forced ads in ad free tiers, bad audio quality, and bad video quality.

I have a few continuous subscriptions, but they are for weird stuff and they are pretty inexpensive (5-6$ a month). Dropout TV and some D&D podcasts for example.

What most streaming services are asking in no way aligns with the content they offer that is worth watching.

Quality is great and they just work.

If I love a movie on X streaming service and they have some licensing problem or decide it's not worth what they're paying to host it, they can remove it at any time. I'm sick of that. I'm sick of what's available changing on a daily basis, and constantly getting split among more and more services that charge more and more monthly.

https://github.com/automatic-ripping-machine/automatic-rippi...

Even very stupid animals can think about the future and have anxiety which is pretty direct evidence they are thinking about the good things and the bad things that happen to them. You could argue well yeah, but they don't have an opinion about it, but Occam's razor suggests otherwise. We are built from the same plumbing in most cases even if ours is better.

I don’t want much and Mastodon lets me shout into the void just fine.

Social networking with people I know is so fragmented now it feels like no service really matters.

My choices would be very different if I didn't think I was more or less on my own.

Yes, there is really another option, because most people don't even have the option of taking Google-level compensation.

Indeed, it's very likely that working as a software engineer for less than BigCo compensation will still put you ahead financially of most people.

"How is it an option to live like 99% of the people actually do live?" seems like a very strange idea to me.

Medicaid covers the cost of nursing homes, and it's not necessarily an advantage to have money saved just for that, because they'll just take the money anyway. Some people try to give away their assets to their families beforehand so that Medicaid will cover the costs, which is a legal no-no.

> Just because it’s possible

This is an understatement, when the subject is how 99% of the people live.

Of course it can be great to be in the top 1%, but it's not "unreasonable" to be outside the top 1%.

I do not want to end up in a Medicaid paid for nursing home or family home.

Even the stories of her residents coming from other expensive family homes were horrifying.

Elder care is horrifying.

People die in pain all the time from neglect and incompetence. People who came to her were regularly on their way to a painful death and she brought them back by just not being an idiot and putting in some effort.

Broken bones and many other conditions went undiagnosed or improperly diagnosed/treated. Doctors prescribing medication after medication to deal with the side effects of the medications they already prescribed that weren’t needed in the first place. Dosages all over the map that are inappropriate for someone in the given age and condition.

You better hope you keep your brain to manage your own medical care or have someone who can do it for you.

You just made my point for me. The money you've saved won't actually "reduce tail risk".

To the contrary, your best strategy for that is to focus on your family rather than on your job, to ensure that there's someone on the tail end who cares enough about you to take care of you if you can no longer take care of yourself.

You can live just fine -- hell, still be in a top income percentile -- on half of what a well compensated big tech SWE gets in their total comp package. But just as software expands to fill the hardware available, so do lifestyles expand to fit the budget available.

So you might need to move to a cheaper house, apartment. Take fewer vacations. Lower your savings rate. You might even need to -- shudder -- budget and plan your spending in advance.

Even if you come out the other side still comfortable and financially stable and working an interesting, rewarding job, it's still a whole thing, a stressful transformation that takes a large investment of time and energy to achieve.

We use the language of conflict and courage in making moral choices for a reason, it is an acknowledgement of the real costs, the allure of doing the remunerative thing. You won't go to jail or be ostracized for being a coward and building killing machines because it pays well. But you should not lie to yourself about there being a justification other than cowardice.

Almost no one actually gets to choose comfort over the safety of others, most people get neither. The few of us who have this choice and choose their own benefit deserve at least our contempt.

Unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth, I wouldn't call it a "transformation". I would call it "normal". If there's a transformation, it's from a person who has to be concerned about budgets to a person who makes so much money that they don't need to care.

I guess I'm just "lucky" that I've never had BigCo compensation, so I don't have to worry about the stressful transformation.

We're not playing "who has it worse" here; I'm not asking you to shed tears for the poor SWEs going from mid-six-figures to low-six-figures.

I'm telling you that changing jobs is already stressful, and very few people are going to chose even more stress by moving houses or cities, etc, over just getting another soulless corporate job that pays well enough to make everything go back to normal, if they're given the option.

The big tech companies do that too, which is kind of the point of the submitted article.

> We're not playing "who has it worse" here

That wasn't my point. My dispute was with "I also see it as the only logical outcome" and "In a country with not much of a social safety net and runaway medical/elder care costs is there really another option?"

> very few people are going to chose even more stress by moving houses or cities

It should be noted that living in Silicon Valley is obscenely expensive, and you could buy a much bigger and better house for much less money in most other areas of the country. And lately I've heard constant complaints about San Francisco going downhill, yadda yadda. (This is also related to the issue of WFH vs. RTO.)

> over just getting another soulless corporate job that pays well enough to make everything go back to normal

You're conflating two different issues here. One, which you explicitly mention, is changing jobs, but the other, left implicit, is getting the soulless corporate job in the first place.

Of course I'd acknowledge that someone who strove to obtain and took a soulless corporate job is likely to take another one. But I think it says something about their personal values that they voluntarily entered that category of business, knowing what we know about it, and given other options. Did they not already "sell out"?

Let's be super explicit here: you're arguing that risk reduction is your top priority, above any moral or ethical concerns. (And that risk reduction requires maximizing compensation.)

Can't really fault ya, but yeah, there is another option.

I suspect this is well understood by the forces that shape social structure in the U.S., and that the current state of affairs is largely by design.

That's why you don't have public health system, or maternity leave, or you have high student debt. To take way your freedom and power where to work.