oarsinsync

> something other than query or quertz. Even Japan and China use an extended querty

qwerty

This is chicken-and-egg though, surely. If engineers are not personally liable for the garbage they produce, the business can replace the engineer with someone more amenable to their requirements (either because the engineer lacks experience to understand why its bad, or because the engineer has fewer scruples, or anywhere in between) with relative ease.

If all engineers are held personally liable for their code, when a business has faced a documented rejection, they’ll struggle to hire someone else to take on that risk.

> The fact that this misnomer of infallible computer systems was ever enshrined in law

Is this actually a fact, or a fact taken to it’s logical conclusion to presume a new “fact”?

The article cites “mechanical systems” as being infallible, and reading that language, it reads to me as some archaic legislation that never got updated for computer software. Instead, precedents got set over time by enterprising lawyers, but setting a precedent when it’s convenient is not the same thing as writing a law.

When I see mechanical systems, I think of something like an abacus. I’ve never used one, but I suspect the abacus itself is infallible. It’s open, it’s transparent, it is easily auditable, and the same inputs will always produce the same outputs. There is no black box translation occurring, like occurs with computer software.

There is only one Photoshop, just like there is only one 2001: A Space Odyssey.

There are lots of other tools, some of which are free, much like there are lots of other forms of culture and entertainment. Absolute masterpieces come into the public domain every year, and become free for a new generation of people to enjoy.

Why are public domain forms of culture and entertainment insufficient? The list of classics in the public domain vastly outnumbers the list of contemporary classics.

FWIW, I disagree entirely. Copyright infringement is a natural consequence of free market dynamics and the marginal costs of replication of IP being near zero, just like spillage and theft is a natural consequence of physical stores. It’s part of the cost of doing business.

I completely agree. The product being sold has only a loose connection to the cost incurred by the provider. This is why the product being sold is being sold in a vague / loose-ish way, because for the overwhelming majority of customers, the product being sold can be sold for a profit.

It’s worth going back to the start of this thread and seeing that this all started with someone complaining that their provider had reduced the BW allowance and wanting somewhere with more generous allowances. When the provider sells things for what it actually costs, the customer gets upset and looks for someone selling a subsidised product in a misleading way. Leading to other people getting upset about the mislead. Those people should go to the original provider, who is doing exactly what they asked for!

I completely agree. The product being sold has only a loose connection to the cost incurred by the provider. This is why the product being sold is being sold in a vague / loose-ish way, because for the overwhelming majority of customers, the product being sold can be sold for a profit.

> so the word doesn't lose all meaning in the future

The English language doesn’t have a central body that decides what words get to exist, and what they mean, like e.g. the French.

English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The definitions are defined by popular culture, rather than a central body.

What is needed is a large enough mass of people to recognise a word as having a particular definition, in order to change/add that definition. See “literally” having a definition of “for emphasis, not literally” as a prime example of the wisdom of crowds.

> What matters is the service plan offered by the cloud provider and the performance indicators they are contractually obligated to meet

Indeed, and those indicators are specified in the contract, not in the headline product description. There are a lot of people unhappy that those indicators in this contract are not specific enough. Those people shouldn’t buy these contracts.

(Also, if you use your 1Gbps port at full speed at the most peak time for bandwidth utilisation, for 37 hours in a month, and not at all outside of that, assuming 20 cents a megabit with 95th percentile billing, the costs you’ve incurred to your provider are $200. Also it doesn’t matter at all what you do after those 37 hours, the costs to the provider are the same. You doing 300TB in a month costs the same as you doing 16TB, if you do the 16TB the ‘wrong’ way.)

It’s also reasonable for OVH to not do that, as most of their customers don’t understand 95th percentile billing, which is the model that they’re being charged at by their transit suppliers.

It’s also reasonable for OVH to not do that, as most of their customers dont understand that transit costs blend with port costs depending on destination, and some destinations are effectively ‘free’ to send/receive from (fixed port costs only, no marginal costs), and other destinations are not (marginal costs associated with transit supplier fees).

The billing model consumers want is a simple BW used calculation, without facing the reality that if they consume their entire BW allowance as quickly as possible, it incurs order of magnitude higher costs than if they consume it at a trickle over the whole month.

> Sure you can try and reduce those as well during the holiday season, but what if a certificate has to be renewed? What if a critical security patch needs to be applied? What if a set of servers need to be reprovisioned? What if a hard disk is running out of space?

Reading this, I see two routine operational issues, one security issue and one hardware issue.

You can’t plan you way around security issues or hardware failures, but operational issues you both can and should plan around. Holiday schedules like this are fixed points in time, so there’s absolutely no reason why you can’t plan all routine works to be completed either a week in advance, or a week after, the holiday period.

Certificates don’t need to be near the point of expiry to be renewed. Capacity doesn’t need to be at critical levels to be expanded. Ultimately, this is a risk management question (as a sibling has also commented). Is the organisation willing to take on increased risk in exchange for deferring operational expenses?

If the operational expense is inevitable (the certificate will need renewing), that seems like an easy answer when it comes to risk management over holidays.

If the operational expense is not inevitable (will we really need to expand capacity?), it then becomes a game of probabilities and financials - likelihood of expense being incurred, amount of expense incurred if done ahead of time, impact to business if something goes wrong during a holiday.

> OTOH, to all intents and purposes these people are behaving like a corporation. How can it be that corporations are denied those rights, but groups of people that behave exactly like corporations -- that are corporations, in all but name -- are entitled to them?

A collection of individuals operating in principle like they’re an LLC, but not contained within an LLC, don’t get the protections that an LLC get. They get individual personal unlimited liability.

For the same reasons that me operating as an individual gets taxed as an individual, but me operating through a LLC wrapper gets taxed as an LLC.

We’ve made up these arbitrary rules whereby LLCs (sometimes) get a different set of rules to real people.

Technically it’s one fewer keystroke (and it’s AAPL).

It’s a lot fewer keystrokes for MS (Morgan Stanley), GS (Goldman Sachs) and MSFT (Microsoft) than it is for AAPL, but it’s a force of habit for some. Once you’re used to referring to firms by their ticker symbols, you do it all the time.

E.g. an ex trader friend still says “spot” instead of “point” when referring to decimal points, even if talking in other contexts like software versions.

> what technical hurdles are stopping Apple from making a locked phone as secure as a rebooted phone

I think the hurdles are not technical, but based around user experience.

Rebooted or turned on?

I had to create a shortcut to actually trigger a reboot, as I couldn’t find a reboot option in settings. My iPhone 13 mini on iOS 17.7.1 took 29 seconds.

I imagine a vanishingly small percentage of the user base is still a very large number of people, that as an absolute number, would make up a significant percentage of the users of any other product.

Apple’s scale is so large, it’s easy to forget even tiny percentages are still actually really significant in absolute terms.

A GP in this thread linked to Inkycal, which is a RPi0W based solution, no batteries:

https://github.com/aceinnolab/Inkycal

It sounds like there’s a lot more edge case complexity to this than the GP originally thought.

Like most DIY tinkerer solutions, unfortunately, which is why people like paying money for productised solutions - the time it takes to debug and troubleshoot home made solutions is often prohibitive for a lot of people who aren’t techheads.

Mate I’m totally ready to buy and fab and 3d print all the necessary bits to replicate this exactly as-is.

Can you post on this thread when you’ve posted the github link, and/or link to your github already so I can star and watch?

Is there somewhere we can download and play the game ourselves? This looks like loads of fun!

The nice thing about drivers providing proof of your package being delivered somewhere that is not your home, is that you have proof that your package was not delivered to your home.

Them not taking the photo taking seriously works in your favour.

I stopped paying for Spotify for 3 years, didn’t login for 2 of those years, came back and my playlists were all still there.

My annual Apple Music subscription lapsed for one day, and my entire library was gone the next day when I resubscribed for another year.

Apple are allowed to make whatever customer hostile choices they want. As a former Apple Music customer, I’m not making that mistake again.

HTTP depends on the TCP and Ethernet layer checksums, which is not great. At today’s bitrates, it is remarkable how frequent a bitflip can occur without invalidating the TCP or Ethernet checksums.

HTTPS effectively gets integrity validation by default, as TLS takes care of that. TLS is much more effective at this than the checksums are.

> on Debian this means using Backports which is not something any sensible sysadmin wants to do because it introduces the hell of having a mismatch of all sorts of software unless you spend your life defining exclusions in the apt config.

  root@nas:/etc/apt/preferences.d# cat 80_kernel 
  Package: linux-image-amd64 linux-headers-amd64 linux-kbuild-*
  Pin: release n=bullseye-backports
  Pin-Priority: 1000

  root@nas:/etc/apt/preferences.d# cat 90_zfs 
  Package: libnvpair* libuutil* libzfs* libzpool* spl-dkms zfs-* zfsutils-linux zfsutils-linux-dev
  Pin: release n=bullseye-backports
  Pin-Priority: 1000

  root@nas:/etc/apt/preferences.d# cat 1000_backports 
  Package: *
  Pin: release n=bullseye-backports
  Pin-Priority: 10

Pretty sure this is well documented in many places, I definitely didn’t invent this wheel myself. Been running zfs on Debian this way for the last 3 releases. Had one instance of drama when the kernel was updated before the zfs package was updated, making me need to downgrade the kernel, which was a faff for sure.

The benefits of using ZFS in my environment greatly outweigh the downsides of using backports. I vastly prefer Debian to alternatives, so here we are (for me).

Like a VW eGolf or a Vauxhall / Opel eCorsa?

I’ve been asking for this on laptops since 2003.

Sounds a bit like trying to roll and support your own k8s platform

> Your logo is almost a 1:1 replica of https://ao.com.

If this is true, then I think it's also true to say that the logo is almost a 1:1 replica of https://amazon.com

(I don't think either is true)

> The point is, Google is telling THEIR users, not Panic, that they aren't qualified to use their own judgment to select a client. It woudl be just as bad as Microsoft saying that if you want to check your email or access SharePoint you can't use anything but Edge (insert jokes about how they basically did do that 20 years ago with MSIE, but let's be serious, that sort of thing would be rightfully mocked today).

Isn't Google doing the same thing today with YouTube? Isn't that what led MS to give up on EdgeHTML and adopt Blink instead?

It's been like that for over a decade now. I hope you're wrong, but I fear you're not.