58 karma · joined August 28, 2016
Why just "within one cycle"? What about situation where you spend 1s in single db query and are 100ms cpu bound during request handling?
"In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(3), or of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46, including binding corporate rules, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation shall take place only on one of the following conditions:
a. the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards;"
Would you say that all your "interruption slots" are taken by a need to look at a phone or particular app? Aren't there still situations where you break your current focus (be it something important or just waiting in the elevator) with an actual thought not related to the phone?
I agree that position I've presented probably stands to some degree on the assumption that there still is a noticeable amount of non phone related interruptions of one's thought patterns. Otherwise my claim of equivalence would be stronger and require more arguments that I have at the moment.
From my personal experience (n=1) it's exactly the case - sometimes it's a phone, sometimes not, so that clearly directs my judgement. OTOH I find it unlikely that this is particularly atypical.
All those 5-10 second breaks -- waiting for a light, waiting for an elevator... If it were not for the phone, what would you typically do? Focus on some random thought or two. Then snap out of it and carry on. The fact that now this is often not a random thought but random input from random app doesn't seem to change that much - pattern stayed the same, just now you can see it in other people from the outside, so it seems more profound.
I've searched for "read" and clicked on "readme" in search results.
EDIT: Now I see what happens - clicking the first search result is behaving in such weird way - clicking results below the first one works as expected.
Sorry, but this is nonsense analogy. The correct one would be: China attacks Mexico against its will.
If Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, they would do so via a referendum, just like UK left EU. The referendum would have high turnout and at least 50%+ of population would vote YES, we want to integrate with Russia. That's how things are done when there is a legitimate reason to believe that some country and its residents want such geopolitical change.
"I fail to see why it's a bigger deal than lives lost in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Tigray, Palestine, or any of the other places in recent history where there have been scores of human rights violations"
In terms of tragedy of individuals, it's not "a bigger deal". It's a bigger deal in terms of global security of the western nations and their values. And spare me condescending tone about those values not being ideal or ideally followed - if you have doubts about them then try to change them or relocate to better places - I don't know, maybe to Moscow?
" But if we're really concerned about war with a nuclear power above all else, we shouldn't be poking the bear in its backyard at all "
The bear has entered your backyard.
TLDR: Instead of separate steps of (1) running `terraform state mv` operation on a state file and (2) modifying your code to reflect that change, now you can do this in a single step, in code: https://www.terraform.io/docs/language/modules/develop/refac... .
edit: grammar
Why not just remember the password and perform a regular fire drill decryption to ensure you won't ever forget it?
But I would not call it that way, as the names I'm coming up with are neither similar to any popular sites nor to sites with similar products. And often times all or most of the similar domains are just parked, often for sale (but not in my current budget).
And I wouldn't say it's difficult to land in such a situation when generating names of this kind - actually at least three of the ideas I'm playing with have this issue.
Essentially, I'm in a situation like, I suppose, etsy was (or could have been) when they've chosen their name and decided to use etsy.com. Then maybe found out that etsi.com is used by some company (from totally other line of business) already, or for sale, but went with their idea anyway, not worrying that they won't own etsi.com (probably fake scenario as apparently etsi.com is not used at the moment, but who knows).
Again, like with reddit, this particular example shows a scenario, where choosing such name & domain was not an issue for the company in the long run.
What I'm considering, are pros and cons of such approach, and maybe some unforeseen problems.
Any particular position you would be willing to recommend?