Presumably in a real application there would be a list of acceptable operations.
Like first you have to show you can do everything necessary in the system which is what this paper does. Step 2 is coming up with a policy of what restrictions to place on allowed transformations
I mean at scale you probably have TLS termination -> caching layer -> webserver -> fpm -> php. All probably written in different languages.
I find this argument kind of unconvincing. At scale you want your components to be rock solid. This project is an interesting experiment, but i would never use it at scale until it matures a lot more.
First off, alot of companies don't have caching layer. It's not different languages, it's the fact that you have really capable webserver underneath. It's HAProxy -> Apache -> PHP vs HAProxy -> Golang (Net/HTTP) or HAProxy -> Python (Uvicorn) with a lot less knobs to manipulate.
I'm Ops person who has supported larger PHP applications. I've had several outages because PHP developer dropped some Apache config to "fix" something that caused HAProxy to disconnect. I've almost never had this with Uvicorn or Net/HTTP.
Of course it depends on what type of application you are running whether a caching layer like varnish makes sense. I'm not saying its universal just really common if you are operating at scale.
I agree. Nginx, Caddy, Apache, etc have found and fixed a million edge cases you'd never think of just from reading and implementing the spec. I guarantee there's code in each of these along the lines of:
# Send an extra 0x20 space character after this header's value, because
# otherwise Chrome on Android 15 shifts into compatibility mode and
# it takes 37x longer to render the page, which everyone will blame on
# "the slow webserver". The spec doesn't say we *can't* add this, and
# tells clients to ignore trailing space, and we've tested this with 483
# other clients to demonstrate that it doesn't cause problems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Now, as a very cool hack, or for easier local development with one less dependency, or just to scratch a personal itch and see if it can even be done, right on! That's clever and I'm glad they did it!
BTW, in your showdead (for wholly unclear reasons) comment about it using copy-on-write RAM semantics, that's just the Unix process model. The OS does all that courtesy of fork() and the server gets it for free.
I was kind of wondering too. I assume this only works if you load a lot of classes before touching request specific variables. That might work for big framework, but you probably have to rewrite a lot if not using one.
From a pragmatic perspective, its unclear to me how much this actually speeds things up. I would assume if using php you probably have complex logic and start up time is not dominating the runtime.
That's how it started. I don't recall any actions that went along with that initial trolling but it's possible that I have the wrong sequence of events.
"Donald Trump’s comments about Canada becoming the 51st state began on November 29, 2024, during a three-hour dinner with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. During the Thanksgiving weekend meeting, Trump reportedly joked that if Canada couldn't handle the economic impact of his proposed 25% tariffs, the country should simply become the 51st state, with Trudeau acting as governor.
While Canadian officials present, such as Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, initially downplayed the remark as lighthearted teasing, Trump continued to lean into the rhetoric publicly. By February 2, 2025, Trump was referring to Canada as America's "Cherished 51st state".
The actions were generally tariffs with the initial excuse being Fentanyl and border security when Trump took office.
And yes, Trudeau has been gone for a while but this is how this started.
No, but lets be real, the problem isn't just Trump. If Kamala wins by an inch, that still means USA is not a place you can trust. Stability is important.
Not to mention the total unwillingness of congress to restrain trump.
The american left likes to pretend trump is the problem, and if he goes then everything is fine. That is wishful thinking; he is just the symptom.
>The american left likes to pretend trump is the problem, and if he goes then everything is fine. That is wishful thinking; he is just the symptom.
The American left has been screaming from the rooftops about systemic racism, misogyny and rape culture, capitalism, imperialism, right-wing Christianity, fascism and all of the deeper issues that Trump is a symptom for almost a century, and that Trump is just a symptom of those issues since 2016. Once again, Americans were warned. But because the warning came from people who weren't straight, white, male and Christian, no one bothered to listen.
Screaming from the rooftop might feel good, but its ultimately not productive. Sometimes i think americans would rather let a problem run its course than fix it, just so they can say i told you so.
This hardly seems knee-jerk. Relations with USA has been deteriorating for a while now. At this point, i think most people no longer view this as a trump related fluke but the bew status quo, which is why canada is scrambling for alternatives.
> As for redefining the world order, that's what this war of choice in Iran will amount to. In the short-to-medium term it's going to redefine the Gulf security architecture. The refusal to restrain Israel probably means Russia will swallow the eastern chunk of Ukraine they occupy.
I couldn't disagree more. The cornerstone of American foreign policy in the middle east has been based around Israel for decades now. Despite how much they all hate each other, if the gulf monarchies see USA withdrawing from Israel, they are likely to worry they might be next.
That's not to say i think USA is being smart about the war - they clearly went in half-cocked without a plan or objectives. However totally ignoring the situation would have likely drawn the region into China's hands too.
I'm not sure how you are connecting the war in iran to the middle east. Increased oil prices? The link seems tenous.
Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Australia can sell raw materials anywhere but the Red Sea being closed makes it take longer and be more expensive and who is really going to demand raw materials in Europe when the energy crunch hits? And we're bouldering towards that energy crunch (both natural gas and diesel). One of Australia's biggest competitive advantages in selling raw materials to China has always been relative proximity. Lower shipping times and costs.
Yes, the US has used Israel as a weapon in the Middle East (since ~1967) but what kept Gulf powers in line was the supply of weapons (to prop up unpopular regimes) and the free flow of trade. This war has shown that the US cannot defend its own bases in the Gulf let alone any of its client states (sorry, "allies").
I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era). The quagmire of Afghanistan was a huge factor in the collapse and breakup of the USSR. This isn't like Vietnam, which we could simply walk away from. Iran won and the Israeli state in its current form is doomed.
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
Its going to be painful no doubt, but you can do lots of painful things when you don't have a choice. I think its ultimately up to the US if they force the issue.
> I believe there's a nonzero chance the Israeli state collapses within the next decade. That's how much things are shifting and what a blunder this has been.
Its the middle east, so anything is possible, but i think that is unlikely. Its on friendlier terms now with the gulf monarchies than at any other point in its history. Its big external threats (hezbollah, hamas, iran) took their swing - they did draw blood but they aren't really in a position to do it again. Its not all roses. Israel burned through massive amounts of soft power and is suffering a brain drain due to war, but their geopolitical position seems pretty good on the whole.
That is not to mention long term dynamics with increasing renewable deployments. What does oil market look like in 10-20 years? That alone could potentially reshape the middle east.
I suspect if Israel collapses it will be due to internal conflict. It seems like their political culture is becoming more and more factionalized.
> The GCC countries are going to have the redefine a new regional security architecture that includes Iran. That's inevitable at this point. If the US had been smart they simply would've admitted defeat ~5 months ago but they can't. Because of Israel. For now.
I dont think we are at the point where that is inevitable. Obviously this isn't going amazing for USA, but still at the end of the day, USA can keep this up for a long time. Its not clear that Iran can.
>So Iran is America's Afghanistan (USSR era)
Hardly. USA is not spending anywhere near as much money and lives as USSR was in Afghanistan. The biggest impact of this conflict is price at the pump and its not even that high. Without that, would the american public even notice?
> Canada is too intertwined with the US to truly divorce the US or even shift significant trade to Europe.
So in 1960, 70% of Ireland's exports went to the UK. By 2000, it was about 25%. It's now about 8%. It's _possible_ to break over dependency on the big neighbour.
Today, 75% of Canada's exports go to the US.
My view would be that this is a very unhealthy situation, and even in the absence of Trump should be something that Canada should be trying to address.
So in 40-66 years Ireland decoupled its economy from the UK? That's a pretty long timeframe.
Also, the two countries have a very different mix of exports. Canada's primary export is probably energy (it's at least top 3). A small part of that is, say, exporting electricity to northern states (eg from Quebec). You can't really send that anywhere else. The rest of that sector is really crude oil. A relatively small amount is exported by port from Vancouver. The rest goes to US refineries via pipelines.
You're talking a decades-long project to send that elsewhere. And for what? Oil is a global commodity. You'd be selling it to someone else and the US would be buying from somewhere else. What have you really achieved?
Canada also produces raw materials and, in particular, lumber. Now this is important for the US construction sector, particularly building houses. So who are you going to sell that to? US and Canada use lumber because it's cheap. In a lot of other places they don't because it's not readily available or there are other factors that disfavor lumber construction.
Another sector is auto parts that go to Big Three auto makers in Michigan. Where's that going to? Particularly with China eating that sector alive. 99% of cars would be Chinese if it wasn't for trade barriers.
Well, I mean, realistically in 50 years oil exports presumably won’t really be a thing anyway. Canada is likely going to need to at least somewhat reorient away from resources.
Obviously decoupling from the US would take time. But the best time to start is now.
Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).
> It's current legal basis is a series of treaties
But that meets the normal definition of a constitution. Just because the document isn't named the "constitution" doesn't make it any less of one. Most countries have constitutions that look like EU's legal basis. America style constitutions are less common.
The later attempt to consolidate the constitution failing, doesn't make the previous legal basis any less of a constitution.
That's fair criticism. The deeper reason why it's not a constitution is because it's not the cornerstone of legal, moral, and existential rights of the signatory constituent countries. These countries each have their own constitution that they are beholden to, with no higher authority to fall back to.
The Treaty of Maastricht (and later, Lisbon) can't be guaranteed to have precedence when called upon if they conflict with the constituent countries' constitution(s), and all legislation covered under the treaties must be implemented separately and completely as locally applicable laws before going into effect. The EU regulations generally prescribe a deadline for implementing such regulations, but a country could (and sometimes does, see e.g. Hungary under Orban) break its obligations under the Treaty and ignore or never implement the agreed-upon regulations, and the EU would be unable to do much to enforce its regulations.
But as it’s proven time and time again, when there’s democratic pushback and rejection of its ideas, it just ignores the democracy and continues with the ideas regardless. The Lisbon treaty being rejected has just led to all its aims being implemented piecemeal anyway. And nobody in Europe asked for or voted for having a president, yet here is Ursula speaking for everyone today, again.
Carney has said Canada is not looking to become a "member" of the EU. Meanwhile, "associate member" is an entirely new thing that has yet to be defined. These aren't incompatible statements.
It appears more accurate to say that Canada and the EU want to work together more closely than they do now. There will be something more than CETA. Perhaps more shared standards on food, etc.. Likely more military procurement cooperation. Perhaps something akin to NATO style military cooperation, just in case NATO implodes*. Perhaps there will be some cooperation in trade disputes as well.
I suspect there is recognition that middle powers like the EU, Canada, Australia, etc. can do a better job of cooperating without everyone joining the EU and giving up an uncomfortable amount of sovereignty. Slightly more cooperation than currently exists may be all that's required for middle powers to do a better job of standing up to the supers.
_________
*NATO imploding is unlikely, but it's always good to have a fallback.
>>> "We're not looking to become a member of the European Union," Carney said Sunday evening on the red carpet of the Toronto International Film Festival. He attended the festival shortly after giving a speech to kick off the two-day Canada Investment Summit, which begins Monday.
>>> "What we are looking — and will begin discussions for — [is] a unique alliance with the European Union. We share the same values, we have the same priorities and we have very complementary strengths."
Not exactly misfired, the title is somewhat clickbaity, 5 diplomats pointed to several aspects of difficulties with Ceta - nobody really "rebuffed" anything. The article is also somewhat hostile to the EU in general, is that a common notion on the FT?
I agree that he has used the term "unique alliance", but he seems to dislike the term "associate member" and is denying it as it is playing poorly among some segments of canadian society (mostly right wing)
Like first you have to show you can do everything necessary in the system which is what this paper does. Step 2 is coming up with a policy of what restrictions to place on allowed transformations
reply