journalctl is designed for these use cases and has options to solve those issues. The lazy part here is you not doing any research about this tool before dismissing it as "not best practice", which is exactly what the fuckups who wrote this article did.

Does Go really not have any libraries capable of supervising an external program? If you'd considered journalctl, why didn't you mention it in the article? As many have pointed out here, it is the obvious and intended way to do this, and the path you chose was harder for reasons that seemed to surprise you but were entirely foreseeable.

My assumption was that they were using a C API just from reading the headline. I don't use Go but these sorts of problems are common to any project doing that in just about any language.

Yeah I was a bit lost from the introduction. High performance object stores are "too expensive?" We live an era where I can store everything forever and query it in human scale time-frames at costs that are far less than what we paid for much worse technologies a decade ago. But I was thinking of datalakes, not vector stores or whatever they are trying to solve for AI.

> It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber

No shit?

Everyone will have preemptive pardons. That has already been guaranteed to them or we wouldn't see so much open lawlessness.

I'm pretty sure GP was being sarcastic. These things are very obviously not the same. You give one example, but another is algorithmic engagement - this has been most extensively studied in kids and teens but it affects everyone.

I made this point elsewhere in thread, but another difference is the daily content aspect of online influencers. Instead of reading one or two shallow, vapid articles a month about "what's wrong with your relationship" they are seeing new content every day, and they are mostly seeing the content that is upsetting the most people.

People have always been following influencers who will say anything in a partner is problematic for engagement metrics?

The closest thing I can think of to something like that were certain types of magazines but they'd come out monthly, you weren't steeped in it.

People actually date these kinda people? Why?

I mean horoscopes have been a thing for a while or very conservative religious people. Same thing. "Don't do that, dont do this" type of content has existed way before the internet.

I understand that sentiment but I think its arbitrary. People buy lots of products that don't have a useful life exceeding two years. For example, every pet toy ever sold. Some will have higher impact for manufacturing and disposal than this ring.

1. Arbitrary it may be. You have to start somewhere. In that sense, anything we do is “arbitrary“. Straw man. (see also: ban of plastic straws)

2. I would expect pet toys to be regulated as well and to contain less environmental toxins and hard to recycle elements than batteries, so I doubt the claim about impact per item sold.

There is an endless stream of cheap battery powered pet toys flowing out of China with far more plastic, circuit boards etc than this watch.

As long as their batteries are replaceable, that’s fine, and if not, they will not be legally allowed to be sold in Europe. What point is it that you’re trying to make?

What difference does it make if you can replace the batteries in a toy the animal loses interest in within 20 minutes?

Then don't buy it? I'm not buying these toys, and why would I?

So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? Glad we agree. This thread is about a law that prevents it.

> So people should make their own choices about the products they buy? A little, yeah. Buy and don't use: your problem. Buy and can't use because I can't change the battery: subject to regulation. We can't stop anyone from making dumb monetary decisions, but we can stop products not being repairable.

And an endless stream of devices in the form of toys running full software stacks which never receive updates. Great, some products are as shitty. Perhaps we oppose those as well?

Good idea, and actually partly implemented as well in the EU. Security updates must be provided for a certain period of time for a certain class of devices, which is the reason why mobiles now receive updates for many years.

This is exactly the problem they're trying to tackle. Repairability goes further than just batteries.

If the battery lasts for two years its exceeding the useful life of many other products already, some of which of have higher environment cost for manufacturing and disposal.

The law has chosen poor proxies for lifespan and impact.

Yes, other things cause e-waste. Sometimes worse.

That's not a good justification for more e-waste.

So is plastic straws and we know what happened with those.

The problem with plastic straws was properly disposing them. For a piece of jewelry I doubt many people would throw it away on the side of the road. A ring that last for years is different than a disposal product that people may use for a couple of minutes.

Not when millions of people buy it

It's still a tiny amount of waste for those millions of people amortized over its lifespan.

Products are supposed to last two years at the very least in EU (local laws may be more strict, but not less). If your product dies before that time, the customer will cite warranty, and there you go. This device is likely one of the many 'designed to last a little bit more than two years', with the emphasis on 'little bit'. It appears to be a perfect example of planned obsolescence.

Thats the whole point. The only people using Teams are the ones who are already committed to Microsoft 365. Companies on GSuite mostly use Slack, I doubt there is a single one using Teams.