I stopped deploying to a single region for production years ago, so I don’t really have a horse in this region comparison race. That said, I’ve seen network level issues in every region I use — nothing like the big outage, but issues that may disrupt a service. Designing for how the world is rather than how I wish it was makes a lot of sense to me.
Those two things aren't even comparable. Both of those are using technology to physically imprint letters onto the page, but in both cases those are still your own ideas in your own words.
But not the appearance. It’s not the same, but it rhymes.
Edit: to clarify, people were judged by the clarity of their handwriting in the past and these tools made that impossible. Similarly, LLMs spackle over higher level language issues.
Dictation has existed for millennia; alternatively, hiring someone to neatly write out your letters after making a messy draft has also existed for a very long time. My mom paid half her way through college in the 60s by typing people's papers for them who didn't know how to type properly.
Isn’t that exactly the same? People hiring someone (or using something) to make themselves better understood, more professional looking, or falsely authoritative?
It's more like hiring a ghostwriter, something which also has been around for a long time, and people who use ghostwriters are rightly criticized for putting their name on someone else's work
Example: Donald Trump did not write Art of the Deal
Because LLM-created content is not an expression of your own human creativity or intellect.
It's not like typewriters -- in a written work the content is the entire point, not the handwriting. So unlike previous tools, this one is replacing you for the part that actually matters.
People use these tools for a variety of reasons (as diverse as people’s experiences). One can use an LLM to help express a perspective or develop and opinion (very important for those who struggle to communicate), or one can fake a picture or voice for fraud, or a million other purposes. It’s just a tool. How it gets used is about the people, not the tool.
Not often, and not recommended, but I have coded on the cockpit table while single-handing a sailboat. Interrupting a conference call with “sorry, one moment, I have to tack out of the fleet” is its own special joy.
This reads like a joke, but I've known two DBAs who don't use database management tools beyond exporting whole tables to excel, making manual changes, and importing to update the tables. Scary stuff.
Nice. JSON over UDP is convenient, but has some drawbacks. But first your questions:
The answer to a) depends: If the payload is larger than can fit in a single datagram (the exact number can vary a bit) it has to be split. Each packet has some chance of loss. If it has to arrive, it has to be acknowledged and if split reassembled. So not bigger packets, but more of them.
For b) use WireGuard encryption. Not necessarily the VPN, just the handshake and transport protection. It’s very well aligned with UDP and lightweight enough to work on battery powered devices. I’ve added WireGuard termination to UDP Gateway specifically for this requirement.
Why am I not a fan of JSON over UDP? Extra serialization, extra size, extra constraints. None of those are huge deals, but I prefer something like MessagePack or CBOR for compact message sizes.
I imagine a world sometimes where punitive measures reflect the scope of crimes. If steal from a person is 1 year, then stealing from 1000 is 10 years and from a million is a lifetime. That’d put the end to political shenanigans, in my imagination.
reply