orisho

Shouldn't a senior developer strive to eliminate complexity while increasing velocity? The two do not contradict. Reducing complexity can increase velocity.

It's probably there not as a way to connect networks, but as a way to keep them separate, only allowing RDP between specific computers on different networks.

A 15 frame min anf max GOP size would do the trick, then you'd get two 15 frame GOPs. Each GOP can be concatenated with another GOP with the same properties (resolution, format, etc) as if they were independent streams. So there is actually a way to do this. This is how video splitting and joining without re encoding works, at GOP boundary.

You're right, but the way to achieve this is to allow the error to propagate at the file level, then catch it one function above and continue to the next one.

However, LLM generated code will often, at least in my experience, avoid raising any errors at all, in any case. This is undesirable, because some errors should result in a complete failure - for example, errors which are not transient or environment related but a bug. And in any case, a LLM will prefer turning these single file errors into warnings, though the way I see it, they are errors. They just don't need to abort the process, but errors nonetheless.

I believe it's because if you are easily replaceable, then screwing up means you're not worth the trouble. If you aren't easily replaceable (whether it's because you have demonstrated you're a good employee or you're working a high-demand role), you are worth the trouble and you'll get more chances. There are other reasons too, such as jurisdictions where suing after being laid off is more common, which makes more chances, PIP and severance packages more likely.

It's not just Israel. It's just not newsworthy if it's not Israel.

You may find yourself in that situation if you have a device that only supports SIMs, and you can't use any of the cheap travel esim providers with it. For travel, you would replace your local SIM with the 9eSIM, and be able to switch providers depending on destination. The difference can be huge in some countries, where a local provider's travel plan can be 30 to 50 USD, while a equivalent on an ESIM provider is just $4.

I live in such a country and have parents with older phones who can't use esims, so the value is obvious to me. :)

I don't recall what it was called in the menu, but it was definitely possible to assume a struct on a particular address. Muscle memory tells me the button is U, even though actual memory fails me.

The alternative is making it possible for developers to only think about code, not permissions, or at least specify the permissions in terms of what you want to do, not what permissions you need. Think iOS, you write "I need fine grained location access" into the manifest, you don't configure the permission system to allow you to call the API.

Another poster touched on another important point: it's important for this to be changeable independent of the code. The reason for this is actually kind of subtle. Obviously, you don't wanna have to need to rebuild in order to regenerate permissions. But the real reason, imo, is that it should be easy to parse for a human, easy to locate for a human, and also easy to parse and adjust for a machine, that might determine a permission is no longer necessary, or who is trying to build a dependency graph in order to determine who to wake up during an incident. That means it should go into configuration that is versioned and deployed alongside the code, but not in the code.

If you make this hard to understand and change, people will just copy it, and the you're back to square one. It's gotta be the easiest thing to do the right thing, because at scale, people are gonna do the easiest thing.

I feel like I'm kinda going on at length about this, so instead I'm gonna leave you with a link to a blog I wrote about the same concepts, if you wanna read more. It's about Kubernetes network policies, but really the same concepts apply to all kinds of access.

https://otterize.com/blog/network-policies-are-not-the-right...

In newer versions of Android, apps which are not opened by the user have their permissions automatically and periodically revoked. So they no longer have the permissions, and when reopened, the user needs to grant the permissions again interactively. Presumably to solve this.

See also: Network Mapper - low privileges, no-eBPF network observability tool for K8s

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39761114

See also: Retina, eBPF-based network observability tool by Microsoft. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39759627

The Network Mapper can export to Grafana Tempo (contributed by the community!), but doesn't have to. You can get its output as text, JSON, PNG or SVG using a CLI or an API (directly from the deployment in your cluster), and use it to auto-generate network policies.

Built while avoiding eBPF and reliance on a particular CNI with the intention to run on older nodes, with low privileges, a low performance footprint, and most importantly - zero config.

The problem with IAM systems is they tend to try to encompass so many different functionalities, and stay unopinionated, that there are just so many ways to achieve similar end results. This opens the way for endless bikeshedding, and unfortunately is inevitable to some degree in large enough organizations.

This is a bit of a shameless plug, but I hope since it's an open source project it's okay. I'm working on a suite of tools called Otterize (otter and authorize, get it, haha :) that automates workload IAM for Kubernetes workloads.

You label your Pods to get an AWS/GCP/Azure role created, and in a Kubernetes resource specify the access you need, and everything else is done by the Otterize Kubernetes operators so that your pod works.

It's a lot simpler than all the kungfu you normally have to do, but it's not magic, honestly, it's just the result of limiting scope and having an opinionated view of what the development workflow should look like. Basically, instead of maximizing on capabilities, it trades some capabilities to maximize on developer comfort.

Check it out if you're keen on contributing, or just think IAM has a tendency to devolve into a mess ridden with politics.

github.com/otterize/intents-operator and docs.otterize.com

Oh, I love this story! :D Always fun to read whenever I stumble upon it.

It has an option to "auto open", which you can deselect.

Why not try asking ChatGPT for this? It may work!

ChatGPT uses the model text-davinci-003, which was released alongside it. The previous model of the same kind was text-davinci-002, and in a comparison I read, seems to perform much less impressively. So it's not just the chat interface. It's genuinely more impressive in my opinion.

Henn na Hotel, literally "a strange hotel".

The answers are over complicating things though. There are built in libraries that make it trivial to do this. A waitgroup is relatively low level and gives you the function you can call in your defer to signal completion. An errgroup builds on the waitgroup and gives you start & wait primitives, similar to the nursery discussed in the HN post.

Funny!

Hey e-pelaza, hit me up via email if you'd like to talk about how to approach this. You can click my username here which will take you to my profile. Once there you'll find a link to my personal website - my email is listed there.

Many Israelis identify as being Jewish or Muslim, but for many of them it's a cultural identity or tradition far more than a religion.

He's saying the App Store should be held to a different standard because it is the ONLY store for iPhones. That isn't true for the Epic store - you can just install one of the other stores, or purchase from a different method.

I bought The Division 2 after seeing a promotion on the Epic store. To install it, you have to install the Ubisoft store Uplay, which is launched through an integration with the Epic store.

After playing that game, I saw promotions for Assassin's Creed Odyssey on Uplay, and purchased it. I later went on to purchase many other games on Uplay.

In short, Epic allows Ubisoft to sell games on its store, for which they presumably pay a cut - for those sales. But Epic has no problems letting Ubisoft require their store be installed for those games, and if you buy something there - even though the Epic Launcher installed it - they don't get a cut.

This is more akin to the App Store installing Fortnite - which Apple could get a cut out of, but not getting a cut for purchases in the app.

-

-

Geez, yes, absolutely. Python went from being my favorite language to being somewhere down there with Javascript, largely thanks to the ecosystem disaster async await brought on the language.

Yes indeed, it is multifaceted and there are many reasons any one person is following the rules. But I was trying to give a plausible explanation for why one might do so, even if it doesn't make strict sense to them to use a Shabbat mode elevator (the user I was replying to asked how does this make any sense, if you're trying to avoid labor during Sabbath), further outlining the idea that there are incentives other than belief that God said so.

In the case of the Sabbath elevator, obviously it was not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, so it's what the Rabbi thinks. So why believe the Rabbi when the logic doesn't seem to be 100% there? I think the reason is there is massive social incentive to comply instead of asking questions about such widely accepted ideas.

It does seem you're speaking from more personal experience than mine, so I defer to you, but I'd like to reiterate that I'm just trying to provide a plausible explanation for why one who doesn't have such a strong belief might still end up doing it (the hypothetical person in the post of the poster I was replying to who's asking themselves why a Sabbath elevator makes sense), but I'm not trying to say that's all there is to it. People who don't question it in the first place because their thought process is that the Halacha is telling them what God meant and thus they are merely following God's instructions don't question whether a Shabbat elevator makes sense in the first place.

I'm from Israel, and while I don't personally abide by any religious rules, I do come into contact with people who do and have an idea: it is important to understand that most people do not follow these rules as a functional method to achieve some goal. For example, it's not like they're actively thinking "oh if I press this button on Sabbath then I'll go to hell, and I wanna go to heaven so I won't".

Instead, they're following these rules as a social decree. In their circles, it is the obvious and accepted thing to do to follow these rules, which the community's leading Rabbi sets (or well, gives guidelines which are socially considered binding). If you don't follow the rules, then you're a weird one, and religious communities tend not to be accepting of the different, so they will shun you for turning on the light on Sabbath (if you keep doing it..)

So for one born into a religious community, you're taught to do so and there is a strong social incentive to do so: if you don't, you're first branded an odd one, and in some cases shunned, depending on how severe your straying off the path is. If you were told that were you to use the elevator normally, your parents would be very upset with you and may stop talking to you altogether, you'd think about it twice, even if you don't personally feel that you want to follow Judaism.

Finally, the religious authorities have a power incentive to do this: by setting rules and maintaining their position as the authorities who set rules, they keep a lot of power over a large number of people. Often this even manifests financially, as a respected religious authority can give Kosher certificates (and many products which are not food, like phones, can also be Kosher) - of course, the certification costs money, just like a SOC2 audit. Same goes for Sabbath certified electric devices - someone gave their stamp of approval, and the developer paid for it.

So to summarize - religious authorities enjoy power and money by being those who set the rules, everyday people have a strong social incentive to follow the rules as breaking them is taboo.

I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it.

But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.

I'd like to point out that this isn't all there is to it - there are very obviously other incentives to do things this way (e.g. personal belief), but I'm just trying to make an analogy with terms from the HNer's day to day to show why you might follow religious rules even if you're (say) a teenager who doesn't care one bit.

The way I see it, (1) is viewed through the lens of men and women as sexes. It aims to say that there's no meaningful difference if only the sex is different - a hypothetical man, every other trait remaining unchanged, who would have his sex changed to female, would not result in a meaningful difference in those characteristics. Therefore, sexism is unjustified.

However, (2) seems to say that women, bring to the table a different set of experiences and knowledge than men. Their knowledge is significant since it represents, on some level, approximately half of society. Finally, because women are underrepresented in C level management, this set of experiences means that women have advice and knowledge that can meaningfully influence corporate decisions - that knowledge would be more difficult to come by for men.

So they only appear contradictory when parsed at face value, but actually - at least to me - they seem to be referring to completely different subjects.