nerdile

THIS. I have seen cultures that performatively celebrate failure:

* Where, when systems fail, they go through the motions and jump straight to celebrating. "Thank you for finding this, X!" "Thank you for fixing this, Y!"

* Where a post-incident report is little more than "We found defect X and then we fixed it"

* Where psychological safety means "let's avoid talking about this and the risk management systems that allowed this to happen because the people responsible for those areas might feel attacked. Trust that the managers have dealt with the situation"

We need to be more specific than just saying "celebrate failure" to non technical managers, or this is what we get.

More context at https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=29969359

It's also relevant to authenticated GET requests. See also: how VSSPS, ARM do it.

The higher cost of grass-fed, free-range, etc. meat and poultry serves to internalize the externalities and disincentivizes frequent consumption. So no, it's not worse in and of itself, if it replaced feedlot farming, then we'd see prices spike, consumption plummet, and ideally we'd also see antibiotic and feed corn use sharply drop as well. We could all wish for such a world.

Followed by a bunch of garbage outbrain ads, which, for me, were all weird game of thrones links today.

I disagree with this author on both counts. 1. Zero filling is theoretically unnecessary, yes. But theory is not often reality. Zero filling is a defensive measure that protects you from other code that makes unhealthy assumptions. Code external to yours may make assumptions about what lies in your padding, either by doing memcmp's, or adding new fields in a later version of the struct and intending it to be ABI compatible between modules. I'll prefer safe and evolvable code over your nitpick about how it's initialized, thank you very much. 2. Consider yourself lucky that you only use free() in your code. In more complex code bases, custom allocators are used. They do not always follow the same semantics as are dictated for free(). Maybe instead of saying "this perfectly valid thing drives me nuts", ask why people do it. It's not because they don't know better.

So the article is complaining that companies that chose to create a gated consortium to protect content are exhibiting gatekeeping behaviors and not representing open ideals.

Um, duh?

These entities have elected to participate in two communities - open where it commoditizes their competitors (e.g. Chromium, Netflix service infra) and closed where it protects their differentiation (e.g. Chrome, Netflix licensed content).

As an open community, instead of demanding access to the gated communities, and whining when companies innovate behind walls, we should be building better, richer solutions in the open.

For massive scale SaaS and non-native-code PaaS hosts, cost and perceived Intel lock-in risk will be the factor that drives them to deploy and evaluate these servers side by side with their Intel hosts. And, yes, those devs will have access to this hardware in their offices.

I find these helpful when my team is designing a feature that intersects with this kind of "gotcha" area, and it sets off warnings in my mind, "I know there's something tricky about this business requirement but I can't put my finger on it...", these type of lists at least help me identify particular pitfalls, even if they don't provide solutions, so I can provide specific and scoped concerns to push back on or clarify the business requirements.

Some people just also really find these fun to think about.

Ok. So what? Software and services have kept usage metrics and clickstream data for decades. They have privacy policies saying that they may collect data about how you use their product. This is that data. So, is this a surprise?

If you don't want Abercrombie to know which items you looked at, don't look at them on the Abercrombie app, or at the Abercrombie store, or on the Abercrombie website.

It's a fun read, intentionally glossy on the details (is this "pop tech"?) but I was fascinated.

Except the value judgments about endianness in encoding. All of the decisions in this system were made in a broader context. When you see something weird, it's tempting to say, that is inane, but it is enlightening to ask, what am I missing?