I used to work for a company owned by Apollo - if its the one i'm thinking of...and if so then "corporate raider from the 80s" is putting things mildly. Those guys really were the type to squeeze every ounce of value of any org without remorse for the future or without thinking of the long-term value that an org could produce.
Yahoo had good tech, sadly well hidden thanks to a bad board and execs. it was still doing bleeding edge freebsd, like netflix just found out and can't stop talking about lately.
last good ceo was bartz, but she lost for carl Icahn who wanted to destroy Yahoo so his shares on MS and google ad business would go up. then he managed to get mayer to go in and do his bidding from the inside and the rest is history.
That makes me wonder, regarding AOL/Yahoo/Verizon/... what's the story behind "8 BITMIME" and their mail server's broken 8-bit handling ([0],[1])? Did they just get server software with bugs in one of the acquisitions/mergers? Or is it some incompatibility or configuration issue comparable to the 500-mile e-mail story [2]?
(Note: I had no idea they hadn't fixed it yet (at least the utf8 part)... I tested just now, and, sure, it's still broken... currently it is operating in "State 2".)
that actually matches the timeline i described. it's already on mayer and Icahn destroying it. i think only senior left on mail was responsible for spam and nothing else.
I've never worked for AOL nor yahoo so I have only an outsider view...and I'm sure to a degree you're not wrong. But still, these Apollo guys are just another level of value extraction.
Seems nice, but are there any publicly available documentation to be able to evaluate its readiness and what languages are there libraries for? I may be blind but I cannot find any.
jpgvm is right. AutoMQ didn't modify the computation layer of Kafka, but only revamped the storage layer. This means you can use AutoMQ just like Kafka. This is very user-friendly for those who are already using Kafka and applying tools within the Kafka ecosystem.
If you need to ask you aren't ready for something like this.
That said, it's basically Kafka with the topic-partition persistence swapped out. So the libraries etc are just the standard Kafka libraries because the frontend listener is unmodified.
Yes, thank you for the clarification. AutoMQ has replaced the topic-partition storage with cloud-native S3Stream (https://github.com/AutoMQ/automq/tree/main/s3stream) library, thereby harnessing the benefits of cloud EBS and S3.
One thing that isn't made clear is when writes are acknowledged.
Specifically is a write acknowledged when it's written to Delta WAL or when it's uploaded to object storage?
If writes are acknowledged when written to Delta WAL is it possible to lose acknowledged writes when an EBS volume becomes unavailable or does that whole partition become unwritable until the volume comes back? Or is Delta WAL itself replicated in a similar fashion to traditional Kafka storage?
Yes, acknowledgments for writes occur once the data is committed to the EBS WAL, with each write operation bypassing the cache via Direct IO. Data is then asynchronously uploaded to S3.
Given that EBS already ensures various levels of data durability, AutoMQ does not replicate data. Addressing your last question regarding the scenario when an EBS volume becomes unavailable:
- AutoMQ maintains a minimal amount of data on EBS, for example, only 500MB, which can be easily cached in memory. If an EBS volume goes offline, we promptly upload all data to S3 and close all partitions on the affected broker. Subsequently, we redistribute the closed partitions to other brokers.
Germany is not a common law country and neither are any other EU countries. Higher court decisions (which I don’t think is the case here) can set jurisprudence but it’s not the same thing as in a common law system.
Also national court decisions do not apply to other member states.
A lot of courts use rulings from other countries where the cases are similar. Any interpretation by the Berlin regional court that GDPR implies that DNT should be treated as a GDPR opt-out should be easily adopted by courts in other countries deciding similar cases.
I’d have to read this specific decision but my opinion is that while the GDPR says the user can refuse consent “by automated means” it doesn’t specify what those means are, thus making it quite hard to follow, enforce and therefore likely that other courts will decide differently on similar cases. E.g. would my own “X-Tracking-Is-Stupid: don’t track me” header be valid as refusing consent? What if I add it as a query parameter in the URL? And so on - DNT is not special in the eyes of the law.
Care to explain? In my legal career - which is now years behind me - I've never heard of, say, a Dutch court picking case law from Germany and make it applicable to a Dutch case.
This talks about foreign countries applying & enforcing your countries court orders (within EU). I don't think it can be stretched to include case law in your new case.
You could try that in court since the base gdpr is the same, but EU law implementations still differ.
GDPR is a different law per country, not one law for the whole Union.
A lawyer could argue that the law in their country is supposed to work like the law of another country because both are GDPR, not directly appeal to the authority of a foreign court.
GDPR is an EU regulation which means that it is one law for the whole union. EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries. An EU directive means that countries have to put a law in their own books.
Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts. In most EU countries only high/supreme court rulings set a precedent anyway.
> EU regulations supersedes even constitutions of member countries.
On paper that is the idea politicians had, but they don't always have the final say in practice. For instance Germany's Federal Constitutional Court reserved themselves the right to make decisions superseding EU regulations, however re-affirming the authority of the European Court of Justice "in the general case", since it is compatible with Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Neither court is explicitly considered to be higher and their stance is cooperative.
So far, as far as I know, no EU regulation was struck down in Germany, only parts of various laws implementing directives.
>Don't know though how different court judgements are interpreted. I'd guess it would have to be an EU-court judgement for it to bind other courts.
If there is a contested interpretation of EU law then the lower courts of a member state MAY refer a question (or questions) to the CJEU to resolve the issue.
In the case of the highest courts (where there can be no appeal) they MUST make a referral to the CJEU.
These referrals also aren't "appeals" as such, either, but are designed to answer the questions in such a way that the member states' courts can resolve the case with an authoritative (and consistent) interpretation of EU law.
- Because some like it better than Python/Julia/<INSERT NEXT language>.
- Because they want data analytics in a ruby application
- Because Ruby is awesome
EDIT: woops nope it is Yahoo now XD