HN user

jabiko

882 karma
Posts0
Comments159
View on HN
No posts found.

Yes, it is costing the taxpayer. However, I think there needs to be some cap, because otherwise the government can weaponize that and be extra inefficient when processing requests for things they don't want to become publicly available.

The current cap of 500€ is a good compromise IMHO: It deters people from issuing unnecessary FoI requests while at the same time keeping it in reach for the average person if they really want that information.

Also with the planned changes, you have to prove that you have an legitimate interest in the information. Which makes the whole thing very vague. So the government can just say that they don't think you have a legitimate interest in the information and deny your request. You would then have to sue.

Also also want to invoice you for all costs that your request causes. Previously it was capped at 500€. So your request could cost you thousands of euros. You are at the mercy of the government how many people are working on your request and how efficient they process it.

Also you have to remember the basics of statuspage messages: Its always just elevated error rates. Even when the error rate is elevated to 100%.

"We are observing elevated error rates when accessing objects stored in the affected region. Impacted customers may experience increased latency or intermittent failures while retrieving debris adjacent data." /s

Ah, okay. I did a Google search for that phrase before posting my comment, but couldn't find any result. Probably its not indexed yet. Thanks for the clarification.

Still I think it would have been better for OP to link to the source to avoid exactly this confusion.

That's not what's written on the webpage. If your post is meant as a critique that they’re not offering those services, you should make that clear to avoid spreading misinformation.

When driving by Bad Aibling I always wondered why the BND (intelligence agency) invests so heavily in satellite communication eavesdropping. I naively assumed that this kind of communication would be encrypted.

Also a fun fact: For a long time it was only semi-officially known that the BND owned and operated the site. Officially it was called "Long distance telecommunications station of the Bundeswehr" and operated by the "Federal Office for Telecommunications Statistics"

That's the point he is making. QUIC has to be based on UDP because the networking stack is ossified enough to not allow the addition of any new Layer 4 protocol. It's not a huge drawback though.

Window Activation 12 months ago

I don't think there should be a "correct" way to steal focus. When I'm editing a document, I don't want _any_ application to steal focus. I don't want a window to show up and steal focus when something needs reauthentication. Maybe the developer of an application thought that his use case is of the very utmost urgency and requires immediate action. I don't agree. Just notify me over the standard way that the system provides and I will deal with it when I want to.

For the debugger use case: If the IDE has already focus, it can pass an activation token to the debugger and the debugger can use this to focus itself. If the IDE is not focused, I don't want the debugger to steal focus.

Even though there is some overlap of the European continent and Russia's territory, I don't think that Russia qualifies as an example for the average European country.

Also, why are you mentioning the look of people in a discussion about cars and manufacturing?

Java garbage collection is both great, and terrible. Sometimes objects are instantiated in a method, and should be marked for GC when you leave the method but aren't.

In the last decade of writing Java software I didn't ever come across a genuine GC bug where a unreferenced object wasn't collected. I'm not disputing that they exist, but if you regularly hit such "bugs" I'm wondering if your understanding of Java GC might be flawed.

Do you expect objects to be immediately collected when they are not reachable anymore?

I'm not sure whether Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT use different system prompts or if there's something else behind it, but Copilot tends to have this overly cautious, sterile tone. It always seems to err on the side of safety, whereas ChatGPT generally just does what you ask as long as it's reasonable.

So it often comes down to this choice: Open https://copilot.cloud.microsoft/, go through the Microsoft 365 login process, dig your phone out for two-factor authentication, approve it via Microsoft Authenticator, finally type your request only to get a response that feels strangely lobotomized.

Or… just go to https://chatgpt.com/, type your prompt, and actually get an answer you can work with.

It feels like every part of Microsoft wants to do the right thing, but in the end they come out with an inferior product.

We've been using TimescaleDB/TigerData for over five years now and it has proven to be a reliable component of our project. We process and store hundreds of data points for a six-digit number of industrial robots and TimescaleDB is what makes that possible. While I can't speak for Timescale Cloud, the managed service for TimescaleDB on Azure has been rock solid.

One annoying thing is that tiered storage is not available on their Azure offering, and also in general it feels like managed service for TimescaleDB is the unloved stepchild of their offering.

But yes, I hope the team continues their amazing work, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the project develops in the future.

I think this is a good move: it focuses on maintaining a single, well-tested code path while still offering guidance for those who want alternatives (see the section "So what should distros without systemd do?" in the article).

It's not making it impossible to run GNOME on non-systemd systems, but it shifts the responsibility of maintaining that support to the projects that are actually interested in it. I think ultimately this might lead to a better user experience since the people developing non-systemd support are also the ones using it.

This is about the Global Administrator role. I don't believe that the employee had this role to begin with.

Otherwise this quote wouldn't make sense:

[...] top-tier user privileges that neither Berulis nor his boss possessed

However, my guess would be that this is the role that DOGE employees requested to be assigned as it is the role with the highest level of privileges.

I think you are making a good point but if this function is only used in one place I would personally prefer to just use a variable:

    something_is_valid = something > 0 and something != foo and something > bar

    if something_is_valid:
        # do stuff
That way you can document the intention of the condition using the variable name while at the same time keeping the locality of the check.

"A list of democracies that don't score non-democracies"

This definition is nowhere to be found. I assume it's your interpretation, which, as already said, is flawed.

For example Saudi Arabia is listed on all of those indices even though its an absolute monarchy and the poster child for an autocracy.

V-dem, Bertelsmann, and EDI literally has scores for China.

I think you confuse being listed on those indices with being a democracy.

On V-dem China takes place 177 of 179, the Bertelsmann index categorized China as "hard-line autocracy" and EDI categorizes it as "authoritarian"

I'm not trying to defend DNSimple and their decision to not keep the legacy plan around for existing customers. Sure, that's a hostile move that seems the be designed to squeeze more revenue from their existing customer base. I'm just wondering why the author didn't at least try to explore that avenue.