whatsmyusername

This is why when I built our systems, I did most of them using a combination of public/private keys and TOTP 2fa. Also severely isolating those systems so that the list of people who need access is as small as possible.

It's orders of magnitude less of a pain in the ass than password cycling.

It's not just Microsoft, I believe NIST has the same guidelines now.

Forcing people to constantly change passwords just means they either iterate a number or write them down. It also means they start to resent the tech and people who make them do it. It helps no one.

Lofi is huge because it’s not in the RIAA. So you can actually do stuff with it (like stream) and not get sued.

That’s real slick. Royalty free Lofi is 90% of my music consumption anymore since the RIAA decided they don’t want their artists to be relevant to anyone who is big on streaming.

I have found 2 use cases, one of which I've never actually seen in the wild.

The most common use case is, "I need to store data where the schema is unknown or can change without notice, and have my shit not break." This is what we used Mongo for.

The other use case I could see (and this is pretty much only with Dynamo) is, "I want to build an application that's cross-region native. Most of my data is relatively static, so I accept eventual consistency on changes. I will have a separate data store for transactional data and data that cannot be eventually consistent." I want to build this project, but it will never happen because it's too easy to RDBMS in a single region to start.

The author calling pfsense, "overpriced," has never actually purchased business grade network equipment. Netgate devices are remarkably affordable for what you pay for them in comparison to most of their competitors.

This kind of response is the exact reason AWS dunked Parler. Picking that image to start with? I wouldn't even read the rest of it.

2 police and 4 citizens die, and your response is to open with something cute? That's your choice?

Sure, I'm excited to see what happens next.

They are welcome to build their own system, or find an ideological peer that built a system to partner with.

Why should I, as a business owner, be required to do business with those I find repugnant?

Memeing quite close to the sun with that one.

It’s a Trump program. Immediate pass.

You’re not going to deter the die hards. You absolutely will deter the “normies” with mortgages and retirement accounts to lose (I’d say their families acceptance, but they don’t seem to care much about that).

They can be mad. Without employment or resources to express themselves it means nothing.

Yeah there are crazies that will be fine with that, but what they can do without the support of “normalish” people is limited.

The alternative is to allow the escalation to continue.

Amusingly, if section 230 was repealed, Cheeto would be banned instantly. No way Twitter would want to be liable for his incitement.

I’d say people (using the term loosely) in his sphere should think of that, but that would require a level of self awareness that’s clearly lacking.

Yep, I just saw that. If the CEO had kept his trap shut they had a chance. He elected to bleet publicly.

It does not surprise me at all. You can meme and rage all you want, but once you translate that to physical violence no self respecting company will do business with you.

If their CEO had kept his mouth shut they might have had a chance, but they never can seem to do that.

The real dunk will be if AWS acts. They’ve acted before against Gab properties.

You should probably start with learning to spell correctly.

The events of yesterday evening are well within these companies rights and in keeping with both free market and conservative principles.

Why should I, as a business owner, be forced to do business with those I find repugnant? We see this all the time with the so-called 'evangelical' movement against those who they deem 'immoral'. It works the same way when going in the other direction.

If you're not happy with the terms these businesses operate under, you're free to go and make your own platform. Of course, considering how interconnected the world is, you may find yourself also having to replace other services who are making the same decision to not do business with you. But that's on you to figure out.

The world doesn't owe you a soapbox.

They don’t need to expand anything. We have all the tools we need to identify, arrest, and incarcerate the perpetrators.

Additionally there’s ample ability to deplatform them and their supporters through the agreements they signed with social media companies and payment processors.

The free market won’t have trouble deciding that these traitors are done with both public life and making enough money to ever have to pay taxes again.

Moreover, we are all well within our rights to practice the conservative principle of not doing business with those we find repugnant.

Google hasn't returned the best results for years. They return the results someone paid to put there. Either through direct paid ads or through heavily SEM/SEO influenced results for everything except the most esoteric topics.

We actually ended up having to do defensive SEM/SEO on bing simply because of how cheap it is to game results there, just because they're not google (no one does it except scammers and people addressing scammers).

This isn't a new rule. This has been the standard for a long time.

This is why I immediately switched our long term plans to Ubuntu after the IBM acquisition was announced.

Normally I don't give a crap about vendor lock-in, but this would be an exception where I'd agree with you.

Though most people are just going to use a framework plugin to manage the messaging layer, so what's behind that is largely irrelevant.

Sooooo hcaptcha is way more aggressive. Like when it first went into cloudflare it made browsing the web miserable.

They've since seemed to put a lot of work into it. To the point where I don't notice it anymore.

They're iterating, and that's what I want to see.

Cloudflare was a blessing for us. It's an incredible service for the price.

Business tier (we needed custom certs) + advanced ssl is like $220/month and you get a WAF, a world class cdn, and DDOS protection.

Yes but we're a business. They're not profitable users.

edit: Downvote and be mad if you want, but payments made through known tor/vpn services are not getting through fraud review.

You are correct, a better description is that their path to 'deliver exactly once to the best of your ability' is clearer.

If I remember correctly SQS is hard limited to a fairly short timeout to requeue messages delivered but not acked. In rabbit it's much more configurable.

Also regular rabbit hosts support the kludge pattern of, 'just run one host and accept if it goes poof you can lose messages,' which is useful if you don't want to bother with the complexity of clustering or are on a shoe string budget.

Lastly you get a nice user interface with the management plugin and you can stand it up locally with docker compose (without depending on AWS for dev or any of the 'aws but on your laptop' solutions).

Aren't they expensive with performance limitations?

Yes we could do that, but we had already been using rabbit in a bunch of places. It made no sense to change it.

I second this. It's pointless to do it for free.

I'm getting out of ops for the simple reason that it's way more lucrative to be called in after the fact rather than try to stop incidents ahead of time (whether by probing and disclosing or trying to build out a blue team without being paid a contract to do so).

They aren't. They're technically more correct but not always the practical best choice.

RabbitMQ is a smart play as Rabbit is very easy to use, understand, and troubleshoot at the low end (which is where I suspect the vast majority of queue systems live).

It also has a feature which is actually really hard to do (and sqs doesn't do). Guaranteed delivery of a message once.

That was THE reason we never migrated to SQS, there are scenarios where SQS can double deliver. Our codebase was built up from nothing over time and couldn't gracefully handle double delivery of messages in all scenarios. We could have refactored, but it wasn't worth the work when we were already doing a half billion in revenue without getting even close to the limitations of rabbit AND were close to selling (which we ultimately did).

AWS is great at selling multiple slight variations of the same product. If you look you can usually find ONE variation that works for you. The real test will be if the billing isn't garbage (garbage billing is why we didn't use their other AMQP service and part of the reason why we don't use things like EKS or Managed SFTP despite having the need).

I can think of one reason why OVH is that much cheaper. OVH doesn't bother policing their network. At all. You don't even need to take my word for it, Cisco Umbrella has written numerous papers on the subject.

They're one of three hosting companies I instantly blacklist across the board when I take custodianship of a network. We don't want their customers business.