this is incorrect. Majority of African leaders and regimes are not interested in addressing high youth unemployment among educated workers by giving their domestic internet firms the room to take root.
Even local startups have little to no support from their own countries.
This is purely authoritarian. They are more interested in retaining power to continue exploiting their own people.
I think this depends a lot on the country, no? From what I heard, something like Rwanda is doing quite well these days (pre-COVID at least, not sure what happened since). The situation in, say, Uganda, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, or Algeria might be very different still.
There are probably some reasonable generalisations that are fair, but sometimes I feel people generalize a bit too much when it comes to Africa.
Can you back that up with anything? Sounds a lot like pure ideologue speak in the absence of any backing. The person you're replying to made some claims that seemed to make sense on their face, and it'd be nice to have more than a "that's wrong, they're not. it's just not" as a response, since I'm actually curious what the on-the-ground situation is in these places.
A headline of "Local President admits focus on internet censorship is driven by personal greed, not economic protectionism?"
I'm from Ghana, a country that's been touching the line of internet censorship from time to time, and I see nothing wrong with their statement.
It's laughably naive to imply that they're censoring outside services to prop up the local tech scene when they can hardly be assed to get kids a proper education without using it as a political bargaining chip.
Like saying they're playing 4d chess when they're not interested in checkers unless it suits them...
Youth unemploynent + unstable region = young men with time on their hands that could easily get recruited and become rebels. So the gov't must be totally interested addressing the issue.
You're forgetting that authoritarian governments do not have to address these things by eliminating the root cause. They can just silence the opposition with arrests or execution [0]. Uganda is so famous for this to the point that there is an entire movie [1] about Idi Amin.
If you actually cared about youth unemployment you could address it with simple economic measures first and you would seek funding from western investors, not get rid of them.
Implementing tariffs in an industry that you are never going to be a world leader in is just plain stupid. Ugandan app developers can just develop for the Google and Apple store and get access to a bigger audience instead of restricting themselves to Uganda only.
It only works out in China because their internal market is bigger than EU+USA combined. It could work out for India (unlikely unless they address corruption). Uganda only has 44 million people it just doesn't make sense.
It works like that in troubled countries and areas where civil wars are frequent events. In a democracy youth goes out and protests without being shot live rounds at.
I was not equating blocking the app stores with addressing youth unemployment.
Silencing the opposition didn't quite work for Idi Amin, because the opposition became part if the military which topped him and tge next president.
If this were a real product, it would have launched as part of Google Workplace (formerly GSuite, née Google Apps). Area 120 is a completely make-work division of Google that Pichai will shut down as soon as he remembers it still exists.
Update March 6, 2020: There's a difficult balance to be had between trying to get it right and shipping a usable product. The repository continues to see rapid development and we have yet to make substantial progress on the major missing feature: dev tool support. Therefore we are bumping the release date yet again. However instead of blindly estimating several weeks out, we've discussed it at length and decided 2 months would be enough time. This coincidentally is around the 2 year anniversary since the first commit. Therefore we are setting the date of May 13, 2020 as the 1.0 release date. Contributors are encouraged to get any major API changes in before April 20 - after that date we will be polishing and bug fixing. Of course the API will continue to evolve and improve after 1.0, but we will be making explicit stability guarantees for some interfaces.
So does this mean you can run containers in containers orchestrating other containers.
Containers must really be the holy grail of serverless and cloud "nativeness".
Seems reasonable to me. Outside of some weird edge cases and some "technically..."s a container is just a process with its own namespace and file system, and maybe it's own IP. If we didn't have shared-filesystem, shared-namespace, shared-ports processes for historical reasons, who would be clamoring to add them? Why wouldn't you run everything in a container, container-scheduler included?
Technically you can define which namespaces to inherit and which ones to create "from scratch" at process initialization time. (Actually there's an unshare() syscall that does it, but clone() is the standard way to create new namespaces and new processes in them, plus there's setns() to put a thread into some other namespace given a fd pointing to that NS.)
So, namespaces are task level things in the kernel. (Every thread is a task, and by default every process has one thread, so every process is also at least one task.)
Thank you for recommending these! Our problems is not related to Lambda functions though, they can run for minutes. It is the API Gateway that shuts the connection after 30 seconds.
We might just need to build our own web server.
It is easier for you as a patient to control your paper record. You can just throw out an opinion that doesn't seem right. If your record is being managed for you, it is much harder to get things corrected.
This is simply a question of ownership and control. If you own and control your medical data you can simply share it with medical practitioners when required.
With the current system on the other hand I have very limited control over my medical data, if at all.
Sure, when receiving results on paper I could throw away anything I "don't like".
However, I have no control over what records my GP, a hospital, or my health insurance provider keep about me. I can't see them. I can't have them amended or deleted.
Every time my local medical cartel upgrades their EMR, my personal history gets amended to include false information that could have impacts on my career, and lead a provider to make a bad decision.
