pnt12

Doing a security analysis of a car is a complex task that most laymen cannot do, so the argument for laws and compliance among specialists is quite reasonable.

Put it another way: if it's all market based, your choices in buying just get 2x more complex. Is this car easily unlocked? Do the brakes often fail? Can it resist a collision?

Or even another thought: since most people don't think about security, companies will flood the market with insecure cars. Want a secure car? That would be niche and cost you double.

Such a strawman. People get locked out of accounts with important stuff for them all the time.

Let's demand more of tech companies who have the means to do proper security , instead of bling user mistakes.

Could be a bribe: defend the interests of the companies, get some cozy jobs for your family in return.

I've had to dig through the history of a 5 year old project - it was much nicer when the commits were focused, the PRs has nice descriptions and even better if associated with ticket.

I will defend merge squash forever - low effort, good results. You do whatever you want in your feature branch, then merge squash. Everyone can do it. You want to split it in multiple commits? Then it probably should have been split in multiple PRs .

I need to write an article about this so I can just link to it instead of writing the same comment evrytime :)

Why?

I think the price point was meant to discourage people from paying. It's on par with streaming services, but with the content produced by the users. Do they get 200+ dollars in ads for the average user?

For example, I considered paying but I have a semi-inactice Facebook account which isn't worth that to me. I'm also not convinced of Facebook's integrity to honor the deal and not process the data anyway.

I'm not a fan of crypto as an investment, but I have no problem with this.

If you are investing with in multiple ETFs and are interested in investing,not owning, in BTC, this makes things simpler - you buy the ETF, the exchange buys the BTC.

If it reaches a point where everyone is just holding for returns, then it could be a timebomb until it all crashes. We could be there already.

This is why firing without cause should never be accepted - the result is straight out of 1984 where people get scared about expressing their thoughts , as they can lose their jobs and health insurance for any reason.

It's much safer to lay low and don't say anything too provokative, but that's a danger to a healthy democracy.

That will be uncommon.

Very well put. This is the work flow which has worked best for me over different teams.

An opposite which I could accept is asking people to carefully rebase their drafts, but I see it as a higher effort with a bigger risk of screwing up, with a dose of bikeshedding an additional topic, the commit history: "why do you split in 5 commits when 2 would be enough?"

I guess you can keep the drafts if you don't delete feature branches. But I don't see it as extremely useful, unless it's a very talented individual AND very methodical with his commit history.

Maybe they test (with code or manually) different commits and then point out which one introduced the problem in the ticket system.

Could be useful but parent mentions a megacorp, so maybe it's just some bureaucracy or ball-breaking.

I don't see this technique applied too often. I see more often:

- reading the affected code - reproducing the problem step by step with a debugger

Which I guess works for all kinds of problems and not just for regressions, therefore people are more used to it?

Unless we're talking about different workflows, squashing works great.

In my team, we merge squash our PRs, having a guideline that they should be a small increment. Here's what happrns:

- when you checkout a commit, you are guaranteed to have a version that was reviewed by a person and validated by ci/cd - most commits have chsnegs with substance, instead of "log", "debug", etc

Without squash, a person can push 3 commits to a feature branch, ci/cd says the last commit is OK, it gets merged, and you may get 2 commits that don't compile or cause a very basic runtime error due to some typo or whatever.

(not that it could not be solved with due diligence, but that comes with higher effort too)

How do you assure working commits and avoid noise without either squash or rebase?

Technically, licenses are not free/open source if they restrict usage.

Some have created licenses against commercial or unethical uses but they are not widely used in software, as they open a can of worms - these restrictions are subjective and as such hard to enforce.

It has been a very competitive market, so companies have to give something to employees. If it weren't, they would enjoy the spoilers and pay the minimum they could - given the amounts of layoffs, we may be going into that direction.

I think this is a next step we must demand after everyone gets on board with E2E messaging.

Metadata is still data!

I contest both opinions:

1. More and more people care about this, eg journalists, politicians, etc. Apple has been talking about this a lot, although some being propaganda for messages, but their customers are already somewhat aware of private messenging.

2. It may not degrade ad targeting that much. I imagine doomscrolling does it way more: you engaged with this post, you ignored that one, and so on.

Regarding hierarchy, I have an anecdote about India. A manager told me that western teams are more likely to challenge a ticket than Indian teams, who hesitate to do that and are more likely to power through. His theory is that the culture makes it disrespectful to question the upper hierarchy, given its caste system, and causes a clash with western culture.

His solution was to communicate much more actively with the Indian team, to try to squeeze more feedback that they would hesitate to give at first.

Ifnyoure a big company dealing with Microsoft , you're not just going to "pay as you go". You'll have a sales rep, dedicated support, custom contracts and special prices. In the contract, Microsoft just needs to promise they won't share your data ever: if they do, the company can sue.

Microsoft is a behemoth at dealing with enterprises and has been doing it for decades. Even old school enterprises are OK with uploading data to Azure.

I think hiring a security specialist is the way to go.

I remember reading a case study from their engineering blog about this a few years ago - I couldn't quickly find it but maybe it's still out there. It was some think about optimizing for read speed, because one write from a celebrity would cause thousands or millions of reads.

I've heart the term "skimoflation". There have been posts on HN about it.

nitpick: git is enough to keep the history of old code, but it's not great at letting you find it.

It would be nice, but unfortunately it doesn't align with their goals - they want you to use github features, not git.

Download Edge, then download Firefox, then download Chrome.

Edge: the best browser downloader downloader!

Companies are suing Mexico: if the justice system is as fast as my country, I'd make them go through the normal process, and have a verdict in 5 or 10 years.

I wonder about the numbers: are cash payments a major enabler in imoral activity?

I guess they can make it slightly more difficult for a drug dealer to buy a car or house, but my intuition is that corruption and money laundering deal with much higher numbers and can go around it.

Not that fighting 1 bad thing is wrong, but considering disadvantagedssuch as loss of privacy and (even) more reliance on banks, we must balance the pros and cons.

I think OP meant the epic games store, not the epic engine.

Psyops? They can tweak the algorithm to try to push for certain topics. Not shove them down user throats, but rank them a bit higher a few times and see if it catches on.

Grug find bug, Grug beaten with club. Grug no find bug, Grug no beaten with club.

Grug work hard for own KPI: amount of times not beaten with club.