• 1
    The Log4J issue made me reflect on something: there us still need of logging frameworks in the age of container? Or can we just log to console and then have a mechanism to collect logs at pod/container level?
  • 1
    @DEVil666 If anything, containers make logging a bit more difficult to get right.

    Containers are ephemeral by nature, they can "disappear" at any moment.

    You do not want log files in there, because you might lose important messages. You could argue "I would always send those files elsewhere, before shutting down the container" -- So why not send the data elsewhere immediately?

    What logging frameworks do, is provide a facade/method in the code to dump your stuff into, and a bunch of "backends" to send it towards. A backend could be as simple as a file, console, syslog, etc -- but also a socket, database, ELK stack, Slack channel, etc

    From containers, you want to send your logs directly through some high-throughput pipeline or log collector (Redis, Kafka, RabbitMQ, Logstash, FluentD) into a persistent, queryable store (Elastic, or less optimally SQL, MongoDB, etc)

    The specific solution depends of course on frequency of log messages, search requirements, etc.
  • 3
    But yeah it does feel like we're continuously in the middle of *more* than just a pandemic.

    Geopolitics gets more intense. Digital vulnerabilities are getting more intense. Climate shit gets more intense. I keep losing track of how many simultaneous crises we're in all the time.

    Maybe it's just my brain, but why does everything suddenly feel so apocalyptic?

    At the same time... *sips hot chocolate*... I guess patching log4j can wait until after the holidays.

    The AWS datacenter we're using is probably either nuked by Putin or flooded by a storm by then anyway.
  • 3
    @bittersweet These crisis are so weird. They all end with the solution being total government control of everyone on the planet with zero regard to personal ownership.
  • 2

    Well, that, or systemic genocide.

    Social distancing and limiting emissions is quite easy with only 0.01% of the population left.

    I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, but I do find the thought entertaining that somewhere a lab technician might have thought "Maybe I could solve climate change by dropping this tube with this mutated SARS strain".

    I agree that bats are a more likely source... But as far as conspiracies go, "lab accident" isn't too far fetched. And from there... "slightly psychopathic lab technician"... Eh.

    Unlikely, but non zero percent probability.

    I was a lab technician during the mexican H1N1 flu scare, and I would be lying if I hadn't thought a few times:

    "Well, if it mostly kills old people... That would free up a lot of healthcare and pension money"

  • 3

    To be clear, I'm not saying that I'd support or favor genocide, just that the kind of scary reality is that we might be sliding towards a situation where that outcome is closer by than during the cold war -- Not because of the few million covid deaths, but because of all the combined threat factors, political/social tensions, and mindsets.
  • 2
    @bittersweet It has happened before and it will happen again. Man is evil. Especially to other man.
  • 1

    Well, disregarding ethics, I think to a certain extent population control and even culling might be a natural phenomenon.

    Many species kill off part of the herd to allow more space and food for those who are left over. Some insects even resort to altruistic suicide and scale down the hive when resources run out.

    Again: Not condoning murder as a solution to any problem, for me it's more of an observation out of philosophical interest.

    Humankind is rubbing against the sides of their petri dish, and with it, the probability of people behaving in extreme ways might naturally increase. Not sure, but it's a hypotheses.

    And the ethics question might also be harder than it seems on the surface: Treating the weak and eldery during a pandemic means a sustained growth of an aging population. Older people use a fairly high share of resources. In many areas of the world, this means near-irreversible destruction for more farmland, and/or famished children.
  • 1
    @bittersweet the world isn't getting more intense, you are just getting older.

    It could have been yesterday that those "stupid ephemeral worthless startups" would destroy our economy with their useless "interconnected net-work". "Television radiation is making people sterile", "the ozonium layer is dying", "the Japanese are taking over the world", "rock 'n' roll is corrupting our youth", "AIDS is a scam!"...

    Trust this old fart, every few years the end is nigh for a whole new set of reasons, and it only gets faster and faster from your POV.

    I'm soooo curious to see the day when roombas will be the root of all evil for suppressing our cosmic magical powers using their blockchains and non-gendered language.
  • 3
    @JsonBoa Possibly.

    I think the 80s must have felt similar with things like the Oil crisis, Cuba crisis, Iron curtain, Ozone depletion, and Chernobyl.

    But I do think things are currently objectively more "intense" again than the 90s/00s/10s.

    Sure 9/11 had impact, the 04 tsunami had impact, the banking crisis had impact.

    But that all still felt like the regular little news bumps on a global scale. Ten thousand deaths here, a little war there, an economic recession.

    Maybe it is indeed me just getting older, but things do feel more pivotal right now.
  • 0
    @bittersweet heh, I remember my first end-of-the-world-as-an-adult (or almost). We were fleeing Kuwait because my family was sure that Saddam would soon invade AGAIN. I was a teenager.
    So, yeah, your next end-of-the-world will feel less... alarming.
  • 0
    @JsonBoa Yeah I'm heavily EU-biased in my perspective.
Add Comment