I read my documentation and I said I will fine-tuned a model Mtsm πππ
π3
Forwarded from KiNFiSH Farms (KiNFiSH)
im outsourcing my desing engineering taste and patterns as skills file. it could also be for anyone who wants to build components as well. you can find more info on how to get started here - https://github.com/farming-labs/design-eng-skills
website powered by this skills
β’ better-auth.studio
β’ docs.farming-labs.dev
β’ orm.farming-labs.dev
β’ grag.farming-labs.dev
β’ farming-labs.dev
β’ farmjs.dev
β’ and some other internal dashboards
website powered by this skills
β’ better-auth.studio
β’ docs.farming-labs.dev
β’ orm.farming-labs.dev
β’ grag.farming-labs.dev
β’ farming-labs.dev
β’ farmjs.dev
β’ and some other internal dashboards
GitHub
GitHub - farming-labs/design-eng-skills: @farming-labs design engineering tastes
@farming-labs design engineering tastes. Contribute to farming-labs/design-eng-skills development by creating an account on GitHub.
β€1
I'm gonna sleep like a baby now (with all of the opinions they gave us). I'll sleep on it π
β€βπ₯1π₯1
Me(
Trying my best to make it simple as I can
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Today in Distributed Systems class, we were discussing fault tolerance
I expected the conversation to stay within the usual technical territory of crashed servers, network partitions, and redundancyβ¦.
Then we encountered the Byzantine Generals Problem,
and my curiosity immediately took over.
What intrigued me wasnβt just the problem itself, but the realization that one of the deepest questions in computer science is surprisingly philosophical:
How can a group reach consensus when some participants may be unreliable, deceptive, or outright malicious?
The thought experiment describes a set of generals who must coordinate an action through messages, despite the possibility that some generals are traitors sending conflicting information. What appears to be a simple communication problem quickly becomes a profound challenge in trust, coordination, and decision-making.
The elegance of the idea is that it extends far beyond military metaphors. Replace the generals with servers, databases, or nodes in a distributed network, and you arrive at one of the foundational problems of modern computing:
What I found most fascinating is that this problem sits at the intersection of computer science, mathematics, logic, and even political philosophy. It forces us to think not only about system failures, but about the nature of agreement itself.
I walked into class expecting to learn about fault tolerance. Instead, I left thinking about trust, consensus, and why getting independent actors to agree may be one of the hardest problems in both computing and human society.
the ability of a system to continue functioning despite failures.
I expected the conversation to stay within the usual technical territory of crashed servers, network partitions, and redundancyβ¦.
Then we encountered the Byzantine Generals Problem,
and my curiosity immediately took over.
What intrigued me wasnβt just the problem itself, but the realization that one of the deepest questions in computer science is surprisingly philosophical:
How can a group reach consensus when some participants may be unreliable, deceptive, or outright malicious?
The thought experiment describes a set of generals who must coordinate an action through messages, despite the possibility that some generals are traitors sending conflicting information. What appears to be a simple communication problem quickly becomes a profound challenge in trust, coordination, and decision-making.
The elegance of the idea is that it extends far beyond military metaphors. Replace the generals with servers, databases, or nodes in a distributed network, and you arrive at one of the foundational problems of modern computing:
how to achieve reliable consensus in an unreliable world.
What I found most fascinating is that this problem sits at the intersection of computer science, mathematics, logic, and even political philosophy. It forces us to think not only about system failures, but about the nature of agreement itself.
I walked into class expecting to learn about fault tolerance. Instead, I left thinking about trust, consensus, and why getting independent actors to agree may be one of the hardest problems in both computing and human society.
π3
Does anyone else feel like people have become extra irritating lately, or am I just losing patience? π
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
π1
Me(
Today in Distributed Systems class, we were discussing fault tolerance the ability of a system to continue functioning despite failures. I expected the conversation to stay within the usual technical territory of crashed servers, network partitions, andβ¦
Found an interesting project idea for me to practice distributed system (will do it after final and stuff )
Posting may help
Posting may help
β‘2
I think being a woman in tech is kinda difficult (or is it a personal experience??)
I will write abt it koy
I will write abt it koy
Forwarded from Supernovae (Nova)
[ brilliant woman ]
YouTube
A Philosophical Look at System Dynamics
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, Spring of 1977. In this lecture, Donella Meadows takes on a more philosophical concept. How can we bring ourselves to be aware of the assumptions we make as systems thinkers? She asserts that models are a set ofβ¦