wgjordan

A cursory glance at empirical research suggests otherwise, that lower socioeconomic status is directly linked to higher suicide rates.

I would be interested in seeing how DynamoDB fronted by DynamoDB Accelerator (DAX) performs in a latency comparison such as this.

> Everything Elon has said he was going to do, he has.

True, as long as this excludes everything he still says he is going to do but hasn't yet done. But of course, he will.

Relevant quote from the linked overview:

> Entry addresses the spoofing issue from 2D input by using an anti-spoofing algorithm that processes a sequence of images obtained from a single camera to build an accurate 3d face reconstruction based on facial key points. Additionally, it estimates the pixel distribution of the input image to detect attacks. Aggregation of both methods achieves high accuracy for detecting attacks on face recognition systems.

"Advice" section has an unfinished sentence ('you')

"designed to last" sounds great, but it can also be an empty promise without any contractual guarantees. What's the warranty going to be on this product?

> Or, put in another way: If you're are 10% worried about that you get to do production deploys 10% faster

Correction: 10x faster, not 10%. The 60-minute deploy is shortened to 6 minutes, not 54 minutes. This is a significant difference in impact on a deployment workflow.

> we stick with the tools that does the best minification while being a bit slower

Correction: not 'a bit slower', _10 times_ slower, which is significant.

> If you're mostly worried about how quickly you can minify when you do minify, then you're worrying about the wrong thing.

You don't need to be 'mostly' worried about how quickly you can minify for esbuild to be the top choice- if you're only, say, 10% worried about build times and still 90% ('mostly') worried about size + execution speed, esbuild still comes out on top from these benchmarks.

Not to mention that Moderna's vaccine doesn't require special refrigeration that 'half the world can't afford', just the pfizer/biontech vaccine. Moderna's vaccine can be stored in regular refrigeration for up to 30 days.

Would probably look a little less sharp...C-flat?

(1999)

> How about trusting candidates' experience?

The reason this philosophy is misguided is not that candidates flat out lie all the time (though that happens too), but more that resumes are crafted to inflate, exaggerate and obfuscate to make the candidate seem more qualified than they might actually be for the position upon closer scrutiny. I say I have 20 years of experience in X, but 4 of those years were just hobby projects in high school, 4 studying in university, another 5 in entry-level positions in a semi-related industry, etc etc. It would be a huge waste of time in obviously unnecessary hirings+firings to blindly trust stated experience on a resume without verifying its accuracy first.

> Is there a name for this?

It seems to go by negative and positive duties (or rights, or obligations) in the literature.

If your argument is that it's clear we should prefer species preservation over all else, then let's take the giant panda example to its logical extreme. Human population (estimated 7,800,000,000) / giant panda population (1,864) = 4,184,549. So all 'reasonable people' would kill 4 million humans before a single giant panda. Is that really the argument here?

One is document-oriented database software while the other is a fully-managed document-oriented database-as-a-service, so not at all a useful comparison.

MongoDB offers a fully-managed database-as-a-service as well (Atlas), for what it's worth.

Not mute, "moo". It's like a cow's opinion, you know, it just doesn't matter.

If you stipulate that 'Rust is going to yield a lot of result when it comes to security, memory safety and maintainability' (see parent comment), then a great many Internet users out there would choose Firefox if as a result of being written in Rust it's more secure, memory-safe (less crashing/bugs) and maintainable (more and better features).

Thanks for the link. For the downvoters, note that HN allows posts to paywalled articles only if they have a workaround, and users usually post workarounds in the comment thread.

See:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

Here's my attempt to summarize what this service actually does, after reading the documentation in more detail:

Proton is an opinionated, 'self-service' application CI/CD workflow built on top of CloudFormation (for now, however it appears intentionally designed for future expansion).

The service defines separate workflows for two distinct teams in an organization, the 'Platform Team' and 'Developers'.

The Platform Team publishes two types of 'Template Bundles' ('Environment' and 'Service') for self-service usage by Developers:

- 'Template bundles' consist of a stack template (CloudFormation yaml that gets passed through a Jinja template filter), a schema file (defining inputs and outputs), and a manifest (metadata specifying the template language [CFn] and rendering engine [Jinja], intended for future expansion).

- 'Environment' templates define the set of shared resources and policies that Services are deployed into (e.g., VPCs, clusters, and shared load balancers or API Gateways);

- 'Service' templates define the AWS resources specific to the service (e.g., Lambda functions, ECS tasks, associated IAM roles, etc), Service bundles also include a separate 'Pipeline' template which defines a separate set of resources (e.g., CodeBuild Projects + CodePipeline Pipelines) used for building/testing/deploying instances of the service.

Developers then consume these template bundles for self-service deployment of CI/CD pipelines for their applications. First they create an Environment from a published Environment template, then create Services (containing one or more Service Instances) in an Environment from published Service templates. When a Developer creates a Service they connect it to their code repository, so new commits trigger the service pipeline to build+deploy the application code.

Finally, the Platform Team maintains its template bundles over time by publishing new minor/major revisions, and Developers manually opt-in to these version updates for their deployed Environments/Services.

The service also provides some curated template bundles (for Lambda and Fargate-based services), which is helpful because there's a ton of boilerplate in wiring up all of these parts together.

Overall, Proton seems to occupy a similar space as Service Catalog (admin-curated CloudFormation stack templates for self-service deployment by developers), but it provides a more managed, opinionated workflow with a shared Environment stack and separate CI/CD pipeline stack for each Service. Seems like an interesting attempt to standardize a bunch of these elements that go into a common use-case of CloudFormation-managed CI/CD pipelines for self-service application development.

Here are documentation links with more detailed info (hard to find since they were not linked anywhere in the product page or announcement, seems like a rushed release):

- https://docs.aws.amazon.com/proton/

- https://docs.aws.amazon.com/proton/latest/adminguide/index.h... (Platform Team Administration Guide)

- https://docs.aws.amazon.com/proton/latest/userguide/index.ht... (User Guide)

- https://docs.aws.amazon.com/proton/latest/APIReference/index... (API Reference)

That's the point- billed per ms, a Lambda that executes in 5ms is 10x cheaper than one that takes 50ms. Billed per 100ms interval, the total cost of the two is the same.

> the nested stack elements that are going to change, not only the parent ones

You should be pleased to hear that 'change sets for nested stacks' support was just released last week:

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/11/aws-cloud...

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGui...

> If somebody was too impatient and manually removed a resource that was managed by CFN, then he might end with a deadlock, where only help was actually a support team member.

This specific situation can be resolved by doing a 'continue update rollback' and skipping the already-deleted resources- see the troubleshooting guide [1] for more detailed info.

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGui...

Needing to contact support for this issue in 2019 only means that the user didn't know how to use the 'continue update rollback' feature properly, which was a feature added back in 2016 specifically to support the rollback-failed scenarios.

> Heh, same. Any of the cloud-provided orchestration tools (Cloudformation, Openstack Heat etc.) are great only for the most basic tasks; using them to provision complex infrastructure is just begging for a world of hurt.

I disagree- I can't speak to OpenStack Heat (and I have no idea what you're referring to by 'cloud-provided orchestration tools' beyond these two specifically), but my own experience using CloudFormation to provision complex infrastructure is that it is in fact great for all but the most basic tasks (where any orchestration tool would just add unnecessary overhead).

> I'm over here laughing in my "over an hour of CloudFormation only to have a run fail, and then a rollback fail, and have to contact AWS support" life.

Your experience must be over four years out of date, because CloudFormation has supported the ability to continue updating a rollback since February 2016 [1].

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/continue-rolling-back-an...

> For a healthy young adult, what are the potential long term side effects of covid?

From an overall risk/reward perspective, I would include the risk of subsequently infecting your parents, grandparents or other vulnerable/high-risk family/friends with severe disease as a 'potential long term side effect' of covid in a young/low-risk individual.

Thanks for pointing out the mention of representation. However the letter still lacked two required elements for it to be an effective formal counter notice:

- §512(g)(3)(C): A 'statement under penalty of perjury' that the material was removed by mistake.

- §512(g)(3)(D): A statement 'consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located', and to 'accept service of process from the person who provided notification'.

These are also noted as requirements in GitHub's counter notice policy [1] numbers 4 and 5.

I think it's also telling that GitHub never referred to this letter anywhere as a 'counter notice', only mentioning it as 'new information' they received about the project.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

> I don't think that even if the first is true, the second is true: even the courts that hold the "nexus" position don't, AFAIK, hold that Sec. 1201 liability requires that the trafficker be already liable for contributory infringement, only that there be a connection of the trafficked circumvention measure to infringement.

Good point and important distinction- not to say that courts holding the 'nexus' position have already established Section 512 protections for Section 1201 violations, just that I could imagine a legal argument extending the position along these lines. If Section 512 protects services from liability for user-provided software that contributes to copyright infringement, it should also protect services from liability for user-provided software designed for the circumvention of technological measures protecting copyright infringement.

At the very least in the absence of further clarity, it makes sense that GitHub seems to apply section 512 law consistently across Section 1201 claims in addition to copyright infringement claims, not only to simplify their legal procedures but also to leave such a theoretical defense available to them in case they ever need it.

After reading the EFF's letter a little more closely, I realize now that it wasn't even a formal DMCA counter notice representing the repository owners, just an informal legal rebuttal of the original claims. Oops. So GitHub wasn't legally required to restore access at all even after 10-14 days, since no official counter notice was ever received.

That makes it more significant (not merely symbolic) that GitHub chose to short-circuit its DMCA process to restore access and open themselves up to liability in this case.