I my have misread the documentation but there seems to be no way to get the same output as the highestAverage, highestCurrent, or highestCurrent functions from graphite.
Not sure how to filter through say 300 servers and select out the top 10 for a particular time span. I would think that it would be a common need but I guess I'm missing something?
Prometheus range queries work a bit differently, so this is not 100% reproducible in a graph query, but a similar thing is possible. A given PromQL expression is evaluated at every resolution step along the graph and doesn't have context about what the "graph range" is. At every evaluation point, it can still look back over a given time window, but that's more of a sliding window approach then and independent of what the visible graph time range is.
For example, instead of highestCurrent, you could do something like:
topk(3, my_metric)
This would at every point along the graph select the current top 3 series that have the my_metric metric name.
Or if you want to average each series over the last 10 minutes at every point in the graph before selecting the top 3:
topk(3, avg_over_time(my_metric[10m]))
Note that due to the reasons mentioned above, topk() here does not select whatever line has the largest area under the entire visible graph range, but whatever is at the top at each given resolution step. So you may actually get more than 3 series in your graph, but only 3 at a time at any given X.
There's also an issue asking about this, but we're not sure if that is fundamentally compatible with Prometheus's query execution model without major changes: https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/586
We've a slightly different computational model, so that takes two passes.
You can calculate the highest value now (topk) or the highest averages (topk+avg_over_time) and now that you know which timeseries you want, graph those. I believe this is doable in Grafana.
I watched it with my four year old daughter on my lap, and then we made a rocket out of a paper towel roll. So it's good outreach and great to see a variety of faces of people who put such an amazing accomplishment together.
Same here. I know 2 people who went there, both after short startup stints after college. They both lasted under 2 years and are now at Mozilla and Facebook and would never go back. So many awful stories...
None of that absolves the NYT from checking sources and attempting to determine the credibility. This is journalistic malpractice.
If we excuse a "news" organization from fact checking because "well, I've heard stories along those lines" we're screwed.. because where will most people hear those stories? The same organizations.
Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about, and what they did, in this article.
You’ll notice that Carney never disputes the truth of the claims. He only attacks the character of the people who made them- or adds related but not contradictory details. Overall, side issues not actually related to the substance of the claims themselves.
The point is that "journalists" have ethical guidelines they have to follow. Failure to do so compromises themselves and their profession. It leads to the defense and promotion of "fake but accurate" articles that tell a great story but risk being just that.. stories.
It's the equivalent of asking Hillary Clinton's opinion of Donald Trump. She may be 100% accurate in her assessment but she is not neutral or impartial.
Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about
This is a very naive view of journalism. It is trivial to do horrible, biased reporting while printing statements that are factually true or not falsifiable. In fact, that is how most of the biased articles are constructed these days. In the age of the Internet you can't get away with outright lies. The tool of trade are mission, misrepresentation, manufactured context, selective citation, cherrypiked expert opinions and so on.
You may see it that way. I didn't actually see any egregious failure of NYT "fact checking" in that victimization post spewed by Amazon PR yesterday. Just Amazon attempting a PR slight of hand. And of course Bezos owns WP, so attacking NYT credibility fits his playbook nicely.
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the most part, mainstream media organizations are not really "checking sources" so much as presenting a coherent narrative that their advertisers want propagated.
I don't doubt that the original anti-Amazon article was a hit piece that was commissioned. That doesn't make its claims false, however.
If it was a commissioned hit piece, that makes it even worse.
We have a "news" organization doing opposition research, calling it investigative "journalism", and then the editor defending their process and integrity without an appropriate disclosure.
I sincerely hope that isn't the case. I could see the FTC getting involved if it was.
That's exactly the way the PR engines work these days, though.
You pay for a column to advertise for your company, you get your column. You pay for a column to criticize your competitor, you get your column. You pay for columns to introduce new concepts that your company will use in the future so that the public has been primed for what you're going to put out there. All of the major companies do these things in order to stay in the public consciousness, and stay favorable.
Sure, these columns will admit "alternative viewpoints" in passing to maintain their veneer of credibility, but that's no threat to their actual purpose. The editor is going to defend their process and integrity until he is fired-- and firing him would represent a concession that mistakes were made. This spat with Amazon is good for the NYT, as it proves that they're willing to "stand up for themselves", which is the perfect trait for a proxy to have when you're paying them to go after the other guy.
Yep. Lowering temps by adding excess fuel per cycle to lower combustion temps by thermal mass and heat of vaporization. The fuel doesn't ignite because of careful regulation of the throttle plate (and in turbocharging engines, wastegate/sizing) management.
My naturally-aspirated gasoline engine has a third-party flash that lets the throttle plate open much more quickly when you step on the gas. It feels much snappier, but opening the throttle plate too quickly allows excess oxygen to burn the extra fuel, not leaving any for heat reduction, which means there are steep increases in NOx and temperatures during acceleration.
Nah, they shredded everything shreddable, stuffed the 'investigation' with cronies, faked health issues and generally buried everything in a massive hole.
Here's an interesting channel on youtube I came across and the newest video happens to be about the NIXIE tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jytF5bvPGcU