229 karma · joined January 10, 2017
Maybe that is because there are US companies competing in the same space that are not held to the same regulations because of treaties like this one. It's hard to build a competitor to AWS, not just technically (although it very much is), but also business-wise - who would choose the unproven startup if you can go with the accepted best practise? By forcing US companies to equal footing, you give European startups more of chance. (Which is a Chinese playbook, too.)
Very interesting read, with a lot more depth and details to this short (but accurate) summary.
In cyber security, there is no reason the opponent cannot attack as well. So, my red team is attacking is not a reason that I do not need defense, because my opponent can also attack.
I'll also have a look around your repo. And maybe I know feel inspired to put some more work into mine - thanks for the kind words.
I've once built something similar for myself (still at https://github.com/fdw/timelines/), but not half as polished as yours. I like yours better ;)
Do you mean to say that neurodivergence is more common among extroverted people? If so, do you have sources for that? I have not yet heard of any relation between extra- (or intraversion) and neurodiversity.
If so, I have to disagree vehemently. That is not my experience at all and feels extremely homo economicus and - to be honest - depressing. I want to care about things I like and that bring me joy, even if no-one pays me for that or validates my choice.
However, they only check openly accessible (i.e. OSS) dependencies. If one of those hasn't seen a release in ten years, I would look for an alternative.
I've used to rbw for a rofi (and rofi-like frontend): https://github.com/fdw/rofi-rbw/
[rbw]: https://github.com/doy/rbw/
The market for these loss-leading services is skewed because Google subsidizes their free offerings so that they improve their ads branch. Because it is hard to compete with a free (actually money-losing) service, it is very hard for competitors to spring up. And thus the whole thing is anti-competitive.
If they were separate companies and had to compete on their own merit, not subsidized by the ads division, they'd have to ask for money too. Then, competitors actually have a chance to offer something better. And through that, the reach of the ads business is limited unless they start to work with the competing services. This opens up the market for other ad markets, too.
And then we are a step closer to the free market that is efficient and good for consumers.
Maybe it works for others, too.
Technology-wise, I've been on restic for some years now, because of its support for cloud backends. (Otherwise, Borg is a fine tool, too.) Until last week, I've used crestic, but I just migrated to resticprofile, as that can do web hooks and pre-/post-commands, which I intend to use for SQL server dumps.
restic: https://github.com/restic/restic/ crestic: https://github.com/nils-werner/crestic resticprofile: https://github.com/creativeprojects/resticprofile/
But if you are serious about your question, please look at the context of each of these: Vacations are often defined by being in a different place. Working, however, is defined through achieving some result - for IT work, there is no necessary, physical "location" attribute. And if they have different relationships to a physical location, it isn't fair to compare them as if they did.
But - and sorry if I'm overly negative here - I see other issues: First, you wouldn't want to dilute the stakes too much. If my bad behavior is a very small problem for 100 people, they probably don't care too much and nor do I. The more pressing problem might be that growth is now really heard. The easiest way is if someone takes 100% responsibility, but then you only get very similar people and no new ideas. Or you need several people inviting the same person, so your community cannot grow exponentially (I think).
This might be a good approach if you strive for homogeneity and accept small growth.
It's definitely interesting, but my gut reaction is that it is a bad idea. If you invited somebody, that means (a) you know them somehow and (b) you want them to participate in the community. Unless you have a stronger bond with the community and are willing to risk your relationship with the invitee for it, moderation will be quite lax, I fear.
On the other hand, having the inviter sanctioned if the invitee misbehaves is also an interesting concept. The behavior in the community will probably be better, but people will be very cautious to invite someone, possibly starving the community.
I already have it running, I just had no idea it could do that. Guess I know what I'll do on the weekend :)
While I have certainly a lot to learn on that topic, I feel like I haven't failed completely - of course all kinds of exercises come around again, and I'm increasing difficulty/number of sets. So there's room for optimization, but it's not a bad start, I think.
Thanks again :)
[rofimoji]: https://github.com/fdw/rofimoji
Professionally, I (and the whole team) lost track of our deployed artifacts, as we're not on a release schedule but also not really on continuous deployment. Mainly, we released when someone noticed that a release has been running stably on staging for a while. We also needed a way to ensure our configurations were correct and to track API versions. So I started hacking together a small React app (new for me at the time) to collect and display all that information. It had a good welcome in our team, and so a colleague and I improved it a lot, added an actual backend and, for example, integrated it into our CI so that you can now see which commits happened since the last deployment and deploy through it, with just two clicks. We also automated a lot of our previously manual checks for larger deployments. It's become the main tool for that stuff, even for our not-so-technical PO.