abadpoli

Yea, the whole “Amazon takes forever to deliver” thing is something I literally _only_ see mentioned on HN, where for some reason it gets repeated a lot.

In real life, I can’t even remember the last time it took longer than 2 days to deliver something to me, and I’ve never heard of any of my friends, coworkers, or acquaintances complain about it. Everyone I know still loves Amazon because of how fast it is. There’s a weird disconnect here for some reason.

I don’t think there is that implicit assumption. My understanding of the principle is that a person would never get “promoted again”, because their incompetence at their level prevents it.

Essentially: if you’re good at a job, you get promoted out of it. If you’re not good at a job, you don’t get promoted out of it. So the end state for everyone is that they remain in jobs they are not good at.

Ailerons and flaps are, but elevators and rudder that control the yaw and pitch of an aircraft are in the tail. See United Flight 232.

Also safety. Uncontained engine failures shouldn’t ever happen (and maybe happen less as technology gets better), but when they do happen, it’s better for them to be under the wing away from the fuselage rather than right in the path of critical control systems.

Since this is a blended wing with no vertical stabilizer, it might be different, but it does still look like there are control surfaces right next to the engines..

The NPR piece on Reddit this morning stated it was founded by Steve Huffman and Alex Ohanian, and didn’t even mention Aaron Swartz.

It isn’t just “corporate liability”, it’s literally illegal in some jurisdictions to retain camera footage for that long. There are significant privacy implications for recording someone at their workplace and deciding on a retention period has to take that into account.

My guess is that the workers unions at Boeing’s plants would fight tooth and nail to keep those recordings from being retained longer.

The Airbus A350 has almost the exact same issue, but requiring a reboot after only 148 _hours_ or the avionics shut off.

An M3 won’t even come close to breaking a sweat doing all of those things.

Hell, add in multiple intensive browser tabs, a few large Excel sheets, and VSCode open to a large Rust project with rust-analyzer running and still, the processor will hardly even get hot. I’ve done all of this on an M2 with zero problem whatsoever.

The article is wrong. The study actually says two liters _per week_ increases risk of irregular heartbeat. 2L/week is much less absurd of an amount: it’s slightly less than 1 can per day.

You’re wasting your employees time by asking them to keep it secret, when you gain absolutely no benefit from keeping it secret (and in fact are introducing an easy failure point by pretending it’s secret) and you have no guarantees that others are keeping it secret.

> This is one of those situations, for many organizations.

And those organizations are wrong.

You’re still misunderstanding. I’m not saying you should go “paint a target” on yourself, I’m saying you should assume _someone else is_ going to paint a target on you, and defend yourself accordingly, rather than acting like the lack of a target protects you in any way.

If an organization considers it sensitive, that implies they’re putting some level of reliance on it being so. Otherwise there would be no point in considering it sensitive.

There’s a difference between “making it easier for an attacker” and using it as a security control, even if it’s not the only security control. The point is that even if you don’t go around wearing a shirt with your address on it, that should never factor in to your designs for security. It should never be considered a security control, even a “defense in depth” one.

In fact, your threat model should ideally ask the question “assume someone does walk around with a shirt with my address on it, will I still be safe?” That doesn’t mean you’re actually going to go do it, but if the answer is yes, that’s how you know you’ve done your job.

If you knew that there was an assassin out there trying to find you and cause you harm, would you consider “I don’t wear a t-shirt with my address on it” to be any form of protection against that assassin?

If you want protection against that, you need to focus on better home security, hiring bodyguards, going to the police etc, and you’re better off assuming that the assassin will find your address regardless of whether or not you wear a t-shirt with it printed on.

Put another way: there’s a difference between “I don’t do this thing” and “I rely on not doing this thing for my safety”. The second one makes a lot more assumptions than the first one does, and those assumptions can lead to problems if they are false assumptions.

I think we agree, but either your meaning or your words are giving me pause.

> you can treat your account ID as non-secret because AWS does. That doesn't directly follow;

It does follow, and not only that, but not only “can” you treat them as non-secret, you _must_ treat them as non-secret.

> the difference between AWS's point of view and your company's point of view means there are things you might care about that AWS does not

The point here is that if you want to have good security, you _cannot_ “care” about this if your service provider does not also care about it. If you “care” about your ID being public, but your provider does not, then if you want to have good security you must either find a way to not care, or find another provider.

It’s not defense in depth to build your security model off of false assumptions, it’s just bad security.

And those organizations are building their security model off of false assumptions, and are wrong.

No, this is wrong. The fact that AWS does not consider the ID a secret means that your company never should either. If your company “cares” about its ID being secret, then your company is designing its systems in an insecure way.

The fact that AWS does not treat the ID as secret means you have no guarantees that anyone within AWS cannot see or find your ID. You also have no guarantee that AWS at some point won’t expose your ID to the world and break your entire security model, because AWS doesn’t think it’s secret. If you do, you’re basing your security off of false assumptions.

AWS account ID is also safe to be public.

That said, one thing I could think of that this could be used for is correlation. If you’re running multiple S3 sites from the same AWS account, people would be able to see that they’re hosted by the same account. Whether or not this matters depends on your threat model.

AWS Account IDs are not secret and don’t need to be. AWS doesn’t design anything that assumes your account ID is secret, and you shouldn’t either.

“Cloud: Visible mass of liquid droplets or frozen crystals suspended in the atmosphere“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud

They’re a bank that likes to pretend they’re a tech company. In some ways, they’re right: they embrace a lot of “hard tech”, are all-in on things like cloud, and definitely value engineering skills which shows through their well-regarded program for new engineers. However at the end of the day, they’re also still a bank and suffer from the same bureaucracy and politics that every other bank does.

Education and communication is important. It brings new people into the field, and helps grow those that are already part of the field, both of which are essential to long term growth and progress. Using phrases like “actual contribution” to refer to non-educational acts is entirely dismissive to the role that great educators play to in the march for progress. Where would you be today if such education was unavailable?

He contributed to pushing forward AI, no “actual” about it. The loss of a great educator should be viewed with just as much sadness as the loss of a great engineer.

100% agree, but I don’t think a work commute will be the deciding factor in that. If I wasn’t commuting, I’d just be logging into work earlier, or maybe waking up later. It’s not like I’d be using the extra 30 minutes each morning to go adventure in the mountains.

Commuting doesn’t necessarily mean working long hours and missing out on the rest of life. I still only work 35-40 hours, I just sit in my car for 30-45 minutes each day. I definitely wish I didn’t, but for the pay I get (and the pay cut I’d take for taking a remote role), the 30-45 minutes is worth it at least temporarily.

My commute isn’t your commute, and you can’t make blanket statements like that.

My stress level while commuting is basically zero. Tbh the commute makes me less stressed because it’s a nice time to listen to audio books and provides a physical barrier to “transition” into work mode. I dislike RTO for other reasons, but my stress level was higher while WFH than it is from commuting.

It’s not so clear cut. If I stay at my RTO job for a few more years, I can probably retire at 35-40, versus taking a pay cut and retiring sometime in my late 50s. I’d say that’s worth the commute.

I think you’re misunderstanding something. There’s no need, and even no possibility, to have “rclone support” on the server, and also no need to “read it all”. rclone uses the features of whatever storage backend you’re using; if you back up to S3, it uses the content hashes, tags, and timestamps that it gets from bucket List requests, which is the same way that Restic works.

Borg does have the option to run both a client-side and a server-side process if you’re backing up to a remote server over SSH, but it’s entirely optional.

Georgia Tech’s online computer science major lists a preferred qualification of already holding a bachelors in CS, math, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, so I don’t think it’s “tailor made” for people that are looking for a mid-career pivot from non-tech to tech.

This is the primary reason most of the MBAs I know did it as well. There are very few socially acceptable ways to pivot your career, and an MBA is one of them.

For example I know several people that wanted to pivot into something more software focused. There are boot camps, but they’re looked down on. Most colleges will not allow you to enroll for a bachelor’s in CS if you already have a bachelors in something else (and also is looked down on), and likewise a master’s in CS is very unlikely. So instead they went for an MBA that has a specialization in data analytics, which for many has been a good foot in the door to more tech-focused roles.

> I dearly love the books, but you shouldn't have to read the books to appreciate the film. It should stand on its own legs, and Villeneuve totally misses on that shot.

This is the part I completely disagree with. I don’t think you need to read the books at all to understand or love Villeneuaves Dune. I hadn’t read the book at the time of seeing it, and I loved it. And then after I read the book I love the movie even more.

I personally found DeVries character to be completely unforgettable in the book and there was nothing specifically he did that couldn’t have been replaced by something else, so I suppose that’s part of why I don’t think mostly omitting him from the recent movie is that much of a detraction.