521 karma · joined October 16, 2017
Generally for most resources, I feel like I can write terraform just as fast as I could create the resources in the console.
Probably not a good example, but I agree with the sentiment that you have to prioritize the business.
There are large swathes of people who can't just "discard politics" because they are directly affected by the current political status quo.
His "work" does a fine job of that on its own.
This is the difference. Most Americans don't have access to this capital, or access to means of borrowing this capital, and if they do have the means then they might not necessarily be able to shoulder the risk.
I'd say this was a poor choice of words. All opinions are "legitimate" in that people actually hold them and believe in them.
> What's simply stupid vs outright dangerous?
I don't think this is hard to measure, especially since we already have tests for what is protected speech and what is not in the US. For instance, we have federal laws that stop employers or landlords from exercizing their right to free speech when it involves discrimination against certain protected classes of people. Or slander/libel, or inciting violence.
> FWIW, that's a contradictory statement. You cannot have a net-surplus of free speech by censoring. They're mutually exclusive ideas.
This is not the case, as explained above and in an earlier comment. In the US we already have laws that limit free speech, yet result in a more free society.
> But what is "good done"? More lives? More freedom?
Yes, both of these things are good and would be considered good under just about any normative ethical framework.
> All I'm trying to get you to see is that censorship is one of the most powerful tools that exist for a society. A concrete example is Singapore's fake news law.
I agree with this fully, and would condemn anyone using censorship to remove free speech that isn't harmful. I advocate for similar positions in that I am generally ok with the government jailing people (which is an act of violence) that commit crimes. The right to jail people is an even more powerful tool than censorship, but most people are ok with this being done.
> First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.
Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute.
I would consider this a form of censorship as well, and I would absolutely support it.
> That we should be debating, identifying and responding to bad/poor speech. It should not be simply removed.
I suppose I could agree in this particular circumstance that YouTube having some sort of banner over this content would suffice, I think it's the same thing as just removing it.
> If you don't believe it's dangerous, is it because the thing that's being censored is in your favor/belief/alignment?
(I think you mixed your words up here, but I am interpreting this as you asking I'm ok with censorship if furthers my beliefs, if I'm wrong please correct me)
I'm ok with any censorship/curtailing of free speech that: results in a net-surplus of free speech, endangers others ("fire" in a crowded theater), or incites violence.
> Censoring goes both ways.
Censorship that is used to silence legitimate opinions that do not cause harm to others is a terrible thing and shouldn't exist. This has nothing to do with "both ways" or any "way"
> That's a core tenant of free speech
I'd disagree heavily with this assessment based on these two points.
The founding fathers drew much of their inspiration from Hobbes who wrote that liberty involved ceding some "sovereign power" (liberty) to a state so that we could be free to do things without worrying about survival of the fittest.
I believe it was Jefferson that was vehemently against government officials making false claims / lying...which is a limitation of free speech, but results in a net surplus of free speech.
The idea that all speech should be free is a fairly ignorant one.
> and voice it with youtube being my megaphone.
And this is ABSOLUTELY against any sort of semblance of the ideas America was founded on. YouTube is a private platform. They can (and SHOULD) police their speech, because it is a private platform.
YouTube is ultimately socially responsible for the outcomes of what people say on it's platform. If someone is denying or minimizing a VERY REAL and VERY SERIOUS global pandemic, YouTube had a social obligation to curtail their free speech.
I've been a subscriber since 2016 as well and this is as well as music uploads is what has kept me on Google Play music. YouTube music has this functionality now, but it still lacks a proper library feature as well as a migration option for existing library's and uploads.
Spotify just does everything so much better, so I'm so close to moving.
I think you also need to evaluate if it can even be done better than everyone else, and the effort required to do so.
Can you link to these laws? Because if you're talking about bill C-16, it's very clear that it isn't making it a crime to express certain beliefs, it's making it illegal to discriminate based on gender or gender identity. Just as the US does with regards to certain traits (such as color, religion, marital status, etc)
I felt like it spread disinformation to glorify Sweden's decision to not implement lockdown. The decision to not suspend civil liberties is a complicated one, so I don't want to go into it; but lines like, "Stay at home if you feel sick," are EXTREMELY dangerous because much of the danger of COVID-19 is due to people being asymptomatic for such a long time, meaning people potentially transfer the disease to others even though they don't feel sick.
That's the crux of my issue. If it was only for a single, un-nested field then it would be trivial.
I am currently solving it by walking through the whole struct, but that is not-ideal.
CD doesn't necessarily refer to Deployment of Delivered artifacts. Instead, once code is merged back into your release branch (sometimes master branch, sometimes tag, sometimes an actual release branch), it should be made available to be launched to production. This doesn't mean more testing isn't required and it doesn't mean that humans are not involved. Continuous Deployment is the process of releasing software to production automatically.
If you did in fact mean Continuous Deployment then you do not need 100% integration test coverage or anything of that nature. Typically, the process might work by releasing a canary deploy which receives a fraction of the traffic going to production. In the unlikely event a breaking change has silently made it through your other tests, it should likely be caught when it is deployed as a canary. If in the extremely unlikely scenario it makes it through both then the existing pipeline you have can be used to "roll-forward" a fix automatically instead of via the human process that is much more likely to fail.
This may seem like a lot to you, but you are front-loading quite a bit of work and a mature pipeline is much less error prone than manual deploys.
Since you are running everything in docker this could probably be made easier by using a slimmed down distro with automatic updates.
You'll still need to make sure your docker images are updated and patched though.
I would enjoy living in a world where these sort of documents are not necessary. However, people are absolutely discriminated against in open source projects and these documents aim to alleviate some of those pains. This sort of rule is necessary as an unregulated expectation of kindness isn't working (eg "be excellent to each other").
The prospect of anonymity could help, but cannot be expected. People shouldn't have to hide who they are as a person in order to contribute.
People also make a weird claim that people are more offended by things and I don't see how that's a bad thing. I would prefer society that calls out these intolerances instead of them just dealing with it. If gay people "just dealt with" the adversities they faced then we'd still be persecuting them. Part of "being offended" is being vocal about people doing and saying terrible things in order to put societal pressure on them to change.
There are some legitimate concerns around CoC's and the like, but the people protesting them aren't attempting to help solve those issues, they're doing so to get rid of these rules and maintain the status quo.
Hope this at least exposes some people on the fence to some of the reasons people support CoCs. I can't speak for every socially liberal person but I'll happily engage in some back-and-forth if you disagree with any points I made or just want more information.
Interested in installing a webserver like flask on here.
I would also appreciate at least a small effort to not glorify their actions...but what are you "calling out"? 13 year olds who botted some gold 10 years ago?
There's an EXTREME amount of power imbalance between employer and employee; if employees have to fear retaliation for voicing their concerns it has a chilling effect.
I'm okay with consequences, but voicing your concerns in public isn't grounds for consequences.
I tried quite a bit of searching for it under the keywords you mentioned but nothing came up.
I typically have a public bastion and just shut it down. In AWS you aren't paying for it if it's turned off and you have an "escape hatch" if you need it.
If someone manages to launch another instance or start the stopped one then they would have access, but that's another can of worms.
Unit files are much more declarative and self-contained compared to a bash script. And the bonus is that if you need/still want to use bash, you can do so in systemd.
I think it's technically still a law that's on the books and the American federal government did try to claim PGP was "munitions" at one point in the 90's, but the feds were skirted by PGP being printed in a book which is protected by the 1st amendment.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...