TurningCanadian

Using CF as an initialism for Cloudflare when talking about CloudFront and Cloudflare is really confusing -- especially because Cloudflare doesn't capitalize the F but CloudFront does.

There are a bunch of rough edges.

Your server doesn't have a static IP for outgoing requests, so to use it with RDS, you can't just open up a port on the RDS side. (They want you to set up your own proxy) https://community.fly.io/t/set-get-outgoing-ip-address-for-w...

The NFS kernel module isn't installed, so you can't use EFS. (They suggest some 3rd party userland tool)

They expect you to set up VPN access with Wireguard for any connections to your containers. You can't just SCP your files to a volume. It's so much more hassle than connecting with kubectl cp or scp, especially if you're hoping to script things.

All that said, I'm happy to see competition in the "we'll run your docker image" space.

The car would have to solve problems like: "are those people on the side of the road behaving in a way that would suggest they might accidentally fall into the road". You or I might realize that a kid trying to treat the curb as a balance beam is entirely different than one walking in the middle of the sidewalk, but to do so takes some understanding that I'm not sure AI can learn by watching lots of driving scenarios.

To complete the analogy, you'd have to want to ride your horse on a country road every so often in a way that breaks the law (original comment wanted to break the speed limit). Maybe you want to ride on private roads or something like that.

Where will the Record & Tuple proposal (Stage: 2) fit in?

https://tc39.es/proposal-record-tuple/tutorial/

Have to get a Pixel to really experience Google's design. Samsung loves to make things worse for no good reason.

On the Google side, Artifact Registry supports image streaming

https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/how-to/image...

Just to set things straight: central control doesn't have to mean that there is only one authority. We'd say that Twitter and Facebook both exercize central control today for example.

Re "central control allows malicious takeover.": Decentralized or no control also allows for malicious takeover. Bad actors are a force that has to be actively pushed back on, and individual users shouldn't have to, don't want to, and don't have the capacity to do that on their own. It's a specialized skill that the average person doesn't have. They can do it to a limited extent, sure, (I like this post!) but do you expect your users to do the research to detect the meta patterns being used by attackers? To look at horrifying images? How would you grant them the authority to do something about it while restricting that power from the attackers? How do you give them the detailed information that they'd need to assist them in their quest while also preserving users' privacy?

You could probably stop reading there and get the point of this comment.

Every time you go into your email inbox, do you want the responsibility for training your mail filters? When some new type of fraud starts happening, it'll be up to you to catch it on day 1. I'm sure that you want to offload that responsibility to some central system that can react to threats like that across all its users at once, and that has people paid to do so. Maybe I'm missing something -- what is the distributed moderation system that is generally used, and how is it goverened?

Re: Libel, sure, you might not care that something is libel when you're reading about someone else. What about when someone else is saying false things about you? What if they have a bigger platform than you and you start experiencing real-life consequences from something that you can prove is false but you don't have the ability to get the word out? If you want it stopped in that case, then it's a classic case of "rules for thee but not for me".

Disinformation definitely can be controlled by a centralized mechanism. Twitter, Facebook, and others have blocked disinformation networks. Are you saying that it can't be blocked 100%? I don't think that's a useful point to make, unless you have an example of a system that would be capable of blocking 100% of disinformation. I don't see what decentralization changes in the face of attackers willing to spend a great deal of money to get their way, only that in the decentralized system, the targets are weaker.

re: "The most important thing is that no one can spread his view without everyone having the ability to contradict him, even the most important and highly person should not be able to so." I don't know what the argument is here. Chinese-style censorship is wrong, yes. Other centralized systems don't have that problem though, so let's go with them instead. Decentralized systems have a similar problem: if enough users (and they might be malicious) don't want to hear what you're saying, what is the mechanism for getting your message out? If you're showing messages that your users don't want to see, how do you pick?

All good points. I think we have a lot of common ground.

> I think most people just want technology to work for them instead of being used to constrain them.

People don't want constraints on them, sure, but they also don't want others to be unconstrained. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins." There's a balancing act. A system that is fully unconstrained is one that nobody will want to use, and/or facilitates behavior that is rightfully illegal.

Let's take the spammer for instance. The opposite is true: people are perfectly happy to have technology and/or laws constrain the spammer. Those constraints on others is how the system works for them!

> Laws don't fix much because no government can force other nations to comply.

But also

> When networks routinely misbehave we even build and share blacklists to exile them from our global community.

Even if laws aren't being drafted by a government, they still happen organically. In this case, the ISP is acting as the government. A system where blacklisting can't happen isn't one that users will benefit from.

Maybe it'd help if we started thinking of laws as another piece of technology. They're imperfect but serve a useful purpose.

> I see the only path where both free speech and security needs are maintained as some kind of genuinely distributed social network with no central control facilities.

You need some central control, otherwise the malicious take over. There are all sorts of malicious behavior that need to be dealt with: spammers, libelers, disinformation spreaders, hackers. You can't expect to offload the responsibility of neutralizing all of that to the users. (We already do enough of that with our centralized networks) The only thing users seem to be able to do is identify out-groups and segment themselves into echo chambers.

I'm not thinking of you specifically when I say that I don't understand the fetishization of lawlessness among the tech crowd. You see that with anonymity too: perfectly anonymous systems also give the attackers an advantage. You can go too far in the other direction too though. Nobody wants some bureaucrat approving everything and giving advantage to the well-connected or persecuting based on the opinions expressed.

I just wish more thought went into thinking of what rules we actually want than continuously rediscovering why we had rules in the first place.

Not to mention that a successful compromise could be used to serve malware to the users.

I wasn't reframing what you said. I quoted you verbatim.

What is an example of something that the mainstream left supports now that is extreme in your view?

Also: do you not see the mainstream right being pulled to the right by its activists?

The key is in the way you're looking at it: "I have more in common with conservatives than the progressive activists"

You didn't compare conservative activists with progressive activists, or conservative activists with progressives.

If you're comparing the mainstream views of one side with the extremes of the other, (or worse: a caricature of the other side that you've been told about) then of course you're going to find the other more extreme.

Sharing a link to a document that others can edit in the cloud is much more convenient than emailing around a _final_v3(2).docx document.

That makes sense, thanks. There were DMCA takedowns before centralization, and there was certainly debate over SOPA/PIPA though. Other illegal content was taken down in the past too. (Libel, exploitative media, etc)

I think the difference now is that we've widely experienced actual real-life impacts of unfiltered & unregulated but widely circulated speech. Attacks by incels and dis/misinformation about COVID come to mind. Many people now realize that they and/or society at large been exposed to and tricked by malicious actors, or at least seen their effects. There have been several protests stirred up by foreign operatives for example. IMO that shouldn't be legal, but in a way it's another form of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater that we have to grapple with defining and regulating.

> Centralization has also created broader societal tensions, which we see in the debates over subjects like fake news, state sponsored bots, “no platforming” of users, EU privacy laws, and algorithmic biases. These debates will only intensify in the coming years.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It sure looks like motivated reasoning. What's the connection? The fewer sites there are, the more fake the news there will be? Why? State sponsored bots benefit from there being fewer platforms? When everyone had a blog, were blogs ever known for keeping out comments from bots? EU privacy laws only apply to large centralized sites? C'mon. I can see “no platforming” of users and algorithmic biases being related to centralization at least.

The size of the car does correlate with its likelihood to hit pedestrians.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/03/17/suvs-pickups...

The only fair price of using a car accounts for the price of removing its GHG emissions from the air. If operating a car costs less than that, then we are all indirectly subsidizing the use of cars, and we'd all be better off subsidizing the use of electric cars / public transport / etc. If using a car costs more than that, then we are unfairly targeting cars.

was "dependancies" an intentional typo?

I don't think you can "get it over with" in any sort of permanent way. Antibodies acquired through vaccination or previous infection helped with Omicron, but they wane significantly over a few months. Similar things are happening with newer variants.

Read-only permissions still leave you open to resource exhaustion attacks.

On the write side, it's nice to have your query return structured data that can automatically update your client-side cache.

You can query multiple endpoints and have the server return the most restrictive cache time.

https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/performance...

GraphQL itself doesn't care whether it arrives over GET or POST. That's an implementation decision. The main problem is the limit on GET query length in some browser and server combinations. There are ways around that though.

Example workaround: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/performance...

Sounds like https://webauthn.io/ would solve your problem. It's a real solution in use by a number of popular websites already. E.g. Cloudflare, ID.me.

Google has Inactive Account Manager https://myaccount.google.com/inactive

The tragedy of the commons that happens when you can't establish the reputation of your visitors because regular users are indistinguishable from malicious actors when signals like IPs are intentionally obscured.

Are you trying to say "what if there are some cases where government oversight results in a net loss?" or what you actually said: what if the net of all action against externalities by government is cheaper than having no government?

If you actually do then decide to have no government, then some other entity will take over and they will be your new government. At the end of the day you have to be part of some group, and that group needs rules. Democracy happens to be my preferred way of deciding rules for the group, but maybe you have some other preference? Maybe the richest should be able to do whatever they want as long as it benefits them and those that they transact with. Who am I to judge.

If we are only talking about the solution to some externalities, and that overall government is a net win, then the solution is to make sure that you are electing people that care about governing wisely. That means that they know when to regulate and when to remove regulations. Too much of either is disastrous.

It's oversimplifying the problem. "Government has problems, so get rid of it." ignores problems in the private sector. The private sector is great at solving problems where there is a market demand that can be solved without externalities. When there are externalities -- e.g. pollution -- you need a competent regulator. You're back to square one: you always need a government. At the end of the day, someone has to do the hard work of advocating for competent government, and to ignore that is to ignore the problem.

The only time I can think of when you'd want to block a password manager / form filler is when it gets the heuristic wrong. It's why autocomplete=one-time-code exists.

FYI IntelliJ/WebStorm has a refactor option that automatically converts class-based components to hooks and vice-versa.