righttoolforjob

Doesn't exist.

I think you just have to bite the bullet and document what you have. Start with the high-level view from different perspectives. Some call it different architectural views, like block diagrams and data flows. Focus on diagrams and a little bit of text, unless you really want to write more, but just a little bit can be good enough. Take this through a few iterations and it has to be both correct, simple and easy to understand.

Now you hopefully have a good block diagram and then you can attack every component in it in the same way.

This is the basic view where you really haven't explained any use case or at least not directly from the perspective of the use case. You've just explained the building blocks. Like with a car you would say it has 4 wheels, a trunk, some seats, a steering wheel, and so on, but even without describing what the hell you do with all of this, people still can get the point.

However, you can if you want to, get into more dynamic behaviours as well, often with sequence diagrams.

Especially on the lower levels perhaps flow charts start to make sense, but you are starting to get more into implementation design here than architecture.

Forget about fancy tools. This is creative work just like programming. Use something basic. Visio, OmniGraffle, Miro, Dia, ...? Or something automated if you prefer.

What do you mean? When converting real money to...?

Except that is mostly printed money. You can't take the crypto market cap seriously. If a significant portion of it tries to get converted from "magic internet money" to real money the price will plummet.

Good that you started then! I can give you two small pieces of feedback:

- use the _s variants of the string manipulations, since they are safer and protect against buffer overflows, e.g sprintf_s

- perhaps poll more often, but only print when there is a change in the output, e.g. maybe poll every 10 ms and print whenever it passes 1 second

Just cook something instead, I guess? Helps to have some food at home ready to be cooked. Go for simple dishes like pancakes or fried eggs if your current skill level is kind of low.

Except you don't actually believe it, so it's a lie, not an opinion.

I suppose it should be a regulator representing the public then.

I understand it a bit differently. They could not remove the clause (as they do not dictate the license), so the clause stays. The software is thus licensed the same way as the original repo and neither can be called open source.

Whoever sued these folks for false advertising should sue Neo4j as well.

Who is getting sued here? The post mentions Neo4j in the initial paragraph, but then it shifts to talking about someone who tried to promote their fork as open source.

Shouldn't Neo4j be sued as well for falsely claiming to be open source then?

It's because when someone means bike, they say bike.

That is good advice! I got the same from my first manager: Research and try to find the answer first before reaching out for help. I had in fact already done that in the particular situation in which he commented, but he was right in principle anyway, so no harm done.

I have a very different feeling about the OPs situation though. This is not about junior people asking too many questions or being lazy or incompetent, it is about a personality of people who are just entitled and demanding and just generally bitter assholes. Not typically seen in juniors!

That's not true. If you read what Google wrote regarding BeyondCorp the argument is that firewalls and VPNs were perimeter defences for weak internal networks and this is the main complaint, that breaching this defence would allow lateral movements as well as of course internal attacks. They have no issue with strong internal zero-trust networks.

So as I said previously, for most organizations, it would be crazy to the point of lunacy of their infosec team to allow the internet access to internal corporate systems and just rely on those to have been individually secured.

I would dare to say that nobody does this or I'll ask you to please give me the IP address of Google's internal DVCS server.

I was in this exact situation together with many colleagues. Just leave. It sucks that you have to leave what you've invested, but it's a fallacy to think that it will get better. The project manager needs to be punished and you need to find a better job.

Take it slowly and rationally though. Do not give them any hint that you are leaving at all and start a slow powerful search for your next adventure. My number one tip? Make sure you get a good manager which is both good to you as well as in control of their immediate environment meaning so that they make sure you can keep your sanity as well.

I read this through a completely different lens. The people I've seen with this type of behaviour have been bitter or incompetent leads or managers. I too wished they would take a long hike of a short bridge, but chose to leave the company instead. Entitled and demanding people who offered very little value and had built their careers by trampling on others. No thanks for me.

Zero trust is about not trusting anything, which means neither external nor internal network. Not trusting the internal network does not mean that you should open it up to everyone. You have misunderstood this gravely.

Google doesn't do what you suggest and I'll throw in another large security-aware company as well, known for their privacy-conscious phones. They protect the perimeter as well as the inside. As does any military organization. Stop spreading misinformation.

Thanks Ivan I've thoroughly enjoyed the previous version.

They're also (intentionally?) misrepresenting the memo.

> MFA should be integrated at the application layer, such as through an enterprise identity service as described above, rather than through network authentication (e.g., a virtual private network).

They comment with:

> While it’s no surprise seeing multi-factor authentication being a requirement, what stands out is that doing so at the network level is explicitly disallowed. Meaning all VPNs and tunnels – nextGen or not – do not meet the standard.

Which of course is completely untrue. You still want VPNs to connect sites or even client/network and any security expert worth their salt will surely recommend you to have layered security. Opening up your internal network to the internet and rely on every app to do security correctly is a ridiculously bad strategy.

I don't know or care who pomerium is or what they sell, but this sort of anti-advice severely diminishes their trustworthiness.

> What do you disagree with?

The main thing I'm disagreeing with is undefining what CAP means. CAP is a very particular proof and the rest I think perhaps we need a new name for.

> CAP has a long history and was originally provided without a proof.

Irrelevant. All of database history is filled with what today is comparatively junk. The understanding has improved and we have better ways of talking about the particular subject matter.

> The proved version of CAP has a very strict definition, but it's not that useful in practice because most systems don't actually follow that model.

It is useful in what it proves, so don't bend the definition. This is my main point. You will have to invent another taxonomy perhaps. We have good names for all the typical consistency models I believe, so we can use those as a starter.

> Most notably, the CAP theorem is often still true when "consistency" is defined as weaker than "linearizable".

This is the type of reasoning that just muddies rather than clarifies.

Looks like a pretty bad paper, to be honest.

Have to disagree here. In CAP C means linearizable, meaning the operation happens somewhere in the time between you sending the request and receiving the response. That's why you have to select between C or A, because in the presence of P you cannot get both. If the node with the latest value is unavailable to you, then you cannot fetch it, thus either you get nothing (C, not A) or you accept the stale value (A, not C).

What if you were economically harmed both by Google and Apple? Do you have any real alternatives left?

I think the same thing should apply, but it's just not as harmful to society currently, because it's just one platform among many, many others, and it's just for games. Whatever the proper regulation is to counter this, it might very well apply to pure gaming platforms as well, making it so that anyone is allowed to make, market and sell games on them, no matter how small.

> none of the parties mentioned in the original issue are 'wanting to do good' in my opinion

Yes, for the immediate issue at hand they just want to make money right, but they might be seeing their greater mission as extremely good, for example in providing the best handheld computing platform to the world or whatever it might be and that makes it all OK. To which level that is delusional thinking I'll let you decide for yourself, but I have a lot of first hand experience of how the mind operates in top level C-suits. They almost have to fool themselves to be able to operate and at their core believe without a shred of a doubt in what they do. Whether this comes from starting each morning with Tony Robbins affirmations I do not know.

Yes, all "evil" should be eliminated. I don't think they're evil in the sense of Hitler or anything like that, they've just learned to play by the current rules and maximize their power under them. I don't think ultimately that it's ethically correct to do so, but it's understandable, and I'm sure a lot of the actions come from a place of wanting to do good. Nevertheless, I wish the world becomes a better place on this aspect as well.

Yep, regulation is way behind. None of this lockdown is for the public good and thus it should not exist. The demand side of the market doesn't seem to be able to balance this out (i.e. vote with your wallet, stop buying the products, they hurt all of us long term). You would need another global level actor building the replacement, in the fair, for public good manner. However due to these global corporations essentially being close to global states in power, there is very little any one nation state can do comparatively. The level of investment would be worth it, for the world, but not for any single state.

I don't think you need to be 100% anti-capitalist to see the harm. It's a bit of a false dichotomy. A purely liberal capitalist market is bad, so is communism, so what? A market is a highly dynamic non-linear system that nobody fully grasps. We are thousands and thousands of years from having a fair world. We need to keep trying to make it better, by talking about it, exploring it, trying to come up with ways to fix it.

Millions of service users use it to interact with perhaps millions of service providers in an app market. That's infrastructure.

> I don't, for a minute, think that the 30% would not be paid by the end-user if Evil Corp A was not in play. B and C would just raise prices.

That's what I hint at with "basic economic theory". Evil Corp X wants maximal returns and there is a price point at which they get maximal returns. They can't just raise prices infinitely, because nobody will buy the service. If a middleman takes a cut then that optimal price point moves. Explaining it as the cut being shifted onto the consumer is too simplistic of a model. A part of the cut is shifted onto the consumer and the rest is lost by Evil Corp B, to maximise their total revenue.

That doesn't seem entirely fair of a comparison. If you built the canal, filled it with water, made sure it's wide enough for the boats that need to travel, etc, etc, then you are doing a useful service right. Apple has built something useful and yet we can all see it's wrong to take advantage of it to this extent, but we're having a hard time explaining why.

I think fundamentally corporations should only exist for the purpose of the public good. That is what's wrong with America and capitalism in many ways. It's not the shareholders but the public that they should answer to. If it does not serve the public good to take a 30% cut, then they should not be allowed to do so. As easy as that.