anticristi

This. The deep dive is fascinating, but really feels like a distraction from a product management failure. Microsoft has been 3 decades in the OS business. Surely someone must have noticed that package management should be a core OS feature.

For someone who is in the OS business since ... 1990? ... it's kind of sad that Microsoft didn't make package management a first-class citizen.

Indeed, the test you suggest would be a lot more thorough. Cool description, thanks!

I feel like my test somewhat assumes that the OS plays by the rules and doesn't desperately hide its communication.

In contrast, your test assumes like the OS is somewhat adversarial, e.g., the vendor of the OS ships it with a malware ... or AdTech partnership of some kind. :)

Agile is a cancer too: In many orgs, Agile is essentially synonymous with chaos. Zero look-ahead. Let's do it first and fix it later. Later never comes.

I believe 99% of Agile's value comes from caring about developers and letting them pride themselves with their progress.

Managers benefit from regularly reminding devs that their progress is not measured by amount of code, but working features. "Can you do a demo?"

Care about your devs, let them demonstrate progress. There, I just invented another Agile framework.

Interesting hypothesis. I think your hypothesis has some merits. The way salary increases work in Swedish academia is that the union negotiates an average increase over the whole university -- say 2.5%. Then the department head will give some below the average and some above the average.

So it's up to you to be "the loudest in the department" to get an above-average increase.

Not saying how things should be, just saying how things are.

Another Austrian work quirk that always gets me: 14 salaries.

I'm at the seniority in my career where I still find stalking flattering. :)))

I think in every job you need to (a) do good work, (b) make that work visible. So at least some amount of self-advertisement is good both for the individual and the organization. You would wonder how much time I spend on "stalking" engineers and making their amazing work more visible towards our customers -- giving proper credit during our biweekly demos, of course.

Unfortunately, above a certain threshold (say about 20% of your time), self-advertisement is toxic. As far as I could notice, this happens in environments where people feel unsafe. This can happen both in industry and academia. However, you might be right that self-advertisement is more present in academia, given the tendance to assess individuals over teams and given the overall "squeeze". :)

Would you agree?

Indeed. I'm unsure whether this misunderstanding is "nurtured" or is simply "wishful thinking". Unfortunately, I heard too often CMEK being seen as "the holy grail" of processing data safely on untrusted cloud providers.

Related snake oils:

- Customer-Managed Encryption Keys -- US cloud providers love to market this

- Confidential Commuting -- where the root of trust is either the same company (AWS) or a US processor manufacturer (Azure, Google).

Ditto. Sweden defines a working week as 40 hour. However, 1 hour of wellness and two daily coffee breaks (15 minutes) are usually included in working time. So "butt-in-chair" time is 36.5 hours per week.

I tend to think of any kind of contemporary creation as BS. We are the filter who will decide what will become test-of-time validated legacy.

Scary stuff:

> Individuals can freeze and unfreeze their credit for free, which stops others from opening new accounts and borrowing money in your name.

> To prevent someone else from filing returns or receiving your federal tax refund, request an “Identity Protection Pin” from the Internal Revenue Service [...]

This blows my mind. How can these things be allowed without proper authentication?

I assume digital identity à la eIDAS, BankID or Freja is not a thing in the US?

I wonder if this would be useful for storing my master (KeePassXC) password. I would probably need to learn how to transliterate back from Cuneiform.

Wait! Is ePassport verification as advanced as to have a challenge-response protocol or similar?

Swedish regulation requires DNSSEC for government domains (MSBFS 2020:7 for the DevLegalOps nerds like me out there).

I mostly agree with the author, except for one issue: ACME is currently vulnerable to DNS MitM attacks. LetsEncrypt reduces this risk by spreading validation across the globe, to decrease the likelihood of a successful DNS MitM. However, I feel that DNSSEC is the sound solution here.

We use zero cookies on our website, so we have no consent banner. But people got so used to seeing "cookie consent banners", that we are considering introducing a "no cookies here" banner.

Anyone else read "AT protocol" and thought of old modems?

If it's any consolation, it look GDPR 7(-ish) years to make a difference. Hang in there!

No, they cannot https://www.enforcementtracker.com/

You probably refer to "legitimate interests". If you play that card, you are required to show a "Legitimate Interest Balancing Test", in which you show that your interests are arguably more important than the interest of the consumer: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...

Source: I love to watch Facebook becoming the first GDPR unicorn, i.e., a company with more than 1 billion € GDPR fine.

I can't help wondering if Meta is suffering death by GDPR and co. Meta really had only one revenue stream: ads. Given the recent GDPR fines, it's clear that personalized ads are increasingly illegal in the EU. Other jurisdictions will follow suit (e.g. CCPA).

Contrast that with Google, who, although makes tons of ad money, had other revenue streams: cloud, workspace, YouTube Joins, pay, App Store, etc.

Since we're already complaining about contemporary video production, may I please ask all YouTubers to please stop using stock videos please. I had to stop watching a few YouTubers, because it was unbearable.

I'm a bit unsure how to interpret these layoffs. Are they a consequence of recession? Or are they a consequence of recent anti-AdTech GDPR rulings?

I'm referring to the recent fine applied to Facebook. The ruling is long, but TL;DR would be as follows: It will become impossible to pay with privacy in the EU. My crystal ball is as good as yours, but I guess this will significantly squeeze AdTech. I wouldn't be surprised if AdTech revenue, valuation and salaries drops to whatever "good" IT companies make these days.

Not to mention that your business would end up being more profitable by avoiding GDPR fines. Most users in the EU would click "Reject all" anyway, so basically that code is not needed.

I would love to read a European, perhaps Swedish version of this article. 12+ months of unemployment insurance is standard here. I guess it doesn't take the loneliness away, but might make unemployment less traumatic.

> Twitter will no longer allow free promotion of specific social media platforms

I can foresee that Twitter Orange will be launched next week, which for 8$/month allows you to link to other social media platforms.

On a more serious tone, does anyone know if this is legal in the EU, given the recent Digital Services Act?

As a

recipe reader

I want to

dismiss cookies, have a video ad follow me down the page, and read why this cake conjures up memories of the author's childhood, before reaching the actual recipe

so that

I feel connected to the author, before fully committing to mixing ingredients

Me reading the comments... So that's how Sweden must have felt a decade ago.

I think about this too and I wonder why?

Are artists really "doomed"? Or are they just worse at redistribution?

15 years ago I connected 1000s of computers natively to the IPv6 Internet. Today, I don't have IPv6 at home.

DJB was right, I'm afraid.

For inspiration, here is how the NYTimes deals with anonymous sources:

What we consider before using anonymous sources: How do they know the information?

What’s their motivation for telling us?

Have they proved reliable in the past?

Can we corroborate the information they provide?

Because using anonymous sources puts great strain on our most valuable asset: our readers’ trust, the reporter and at least one editor is required to know the identity of the source. A senior newsroom editor must also approve the use of the information the source provides.