ongy

Which probably also relates to DB pricing.

Being flexible with DB is expensive. Getting somewhere at all is generally cheap. Getting somewhere at a reasonable time is usually ok~ish priced. But being able to just take any train? €€€

Hopefully cartel regulation would prevent Microsoft from using their market leader position to force partners to remove all support for competitors.

But I'm losing hope with those.

I think a large part of this is about how a branch is expected to be used.

Branches that people are expected to track (i.e. pull from or merge into their regularly) should never rebase/force-push.

Branches that are short-lived or only exist to represent some state can do so quite often.

That point is not reached during packaging though.

I prefer rebasing git histories over messing with the patch quilting that debian packaging standards use(d to use). Though last I had to use the debian packaging mechanisms, I roundtripped them into git for working on them. I lost nothing during the export.

It's about getting a clear statement form the US government that this can be ignored at no risk to them aiding in enforcement.

I.e. peace of mind. Not just for the large~ish (questionable in various ways, as the lawyer points out himself) sites currently under fire, but for all the minor ones that simply don't have the resources to comply with every country.

(I haven't read today's article) in a previous blog post, they did mention that geo-blocking the UK was not enough for ofcom to stop the harassment. So having a clear statement, and potentially using that as angle to accuse Ofcom of harassment should they not stop, would be quite welcome.

While the US has a great track record with protecting their own citizen against legal threats from the outside (maybe a bit too much at times), I'd love the same to be done in the EU, since I'm a lot more doubtful about our relations with the UK in such aspects.

jubernetes?

Low stakes (IP violations etc.): absolutely

High stakes (military / nation state scale): no

Do you have a link to research pointing at antidepressants being no better than placebo?

ok, I'll bite.

What's the git product that only carries the name?

IMO the interesting bit here isn't the specific technical change but the interpersonal one of overriding the maintainer(s) decision.

Thus the title reflects the most interesting bit of the story.

Oh yea, this is "srcfs the idea" but not "srcfs the project".

I.e. this isn't something battel tested for hundreds of thousands of developers 24/7 over the last years. But a simple commercial product sold by people that liked what they used.

Well, since android is their flagship example, anyone that wants to build custom android releases for some reason. With the way things are, you don't need billions of code of your own code to maybe benefit from tools that handle billions of lines of code.

No. `/dev/shm` would just be a build in `tmpfs`.

Though from what I gather form the story, part of the spedup comes from how android composes their build stages.

I.e. speeding up by not downloading everything only helps if you don't need everything you download. And adds up when you download multiple times.

I'm not sure they can actually provide a speedup in a tight developer cycle with a local git checkout and a good build system.

While it looks like at least some of the team are ex-googlers, this isn't the srcfs we know from piper (Google internal tools).

Looks like it's similar in some ways. But they also don't tell too much and even the self-hosting variant is "Talk to us" pricing :/

Or having a quick chat with the delivery guy/neighbour while remote.

Who said anything about security?

They are toys

Why do you think it's fear?

The owners I know consider it a convenience device.

Huh, that way of doing asynchronicity is quite interesting.

Though my Haskell and Rust primed brain really dislikes the way ownership of the memory allocation for the response struct works.

It gets allocated by the caller (library), handed over to the function fully owned, and then gets consumed by the response function?

why do you assume the full ethernet header?

IIRC. cut-through only needs the first 6 bytes. Since it only needs the destination address for the port lookup.

Potentially the first bit, on broadcast.

But you get

* 12h time

* Sunday start of week

* Silly pyramid mm/dd/yyyy

> export LC_TIME=en_US.UTF-8

Why would you do this to yourself?

That's not fractional though.

Proper fractional, 1.11 is smaller than 1.3.

In versions, 1.11 is larger than 1.3

But the offline enabled property allows exactly that.

Both sides type offline and only sync later. Neither would like their change to just be discarded.

What does 'bucked' mean in this context?

> In Go 1.24, we are introducing a new, experimental testing/synctest package Clearly a mature mechanism we'd see in large companies...

I do. That's why I have a browser render it to a format that makes sense for human consumption.

Granted, html actually makes sense in the xml-ish (I don't remember if it's technically compliant), since it weaves formatting into semantically uninterrupted text.

If that's not the case, I don't see a real benefit to use XML over anything sane (not yaml... Binary formats depending on use case)

Yes. A sane schema that actually encapsulates the data would be a lot easier to read.

Earlier I had only seen the mix of values in body and values in tags. With one even being a tag called "value".

Thanks for showing more examples of XML being used to write unreadable messes.

EAD does indeed look like a good example of why we shouldn't use XML.

Calling XML human readable is a stretch. It can be with some tooling, but json is easier to read with both tooling and without. There's some level of the schema being relevant to how human readable the serialization is, but I know significantly fewer people that can parse an XML file by sight than json.

Efficient is also... questionable. It requires the full turing machine power to even validate iirc. (surely does to fully parse). by which metric is XML efficient?

You are making two assumptions that are generally not true

* In the US * Interviewee is currently unemployed

Even then, the general candidate we interview for Tech positions can usually survive quite well on a couple months.

At best WPA2. WEP is broken in ways that don't need human fault.

The only downside of TOTP to FIDO and friends (from a security perspective) is phishing resistance