logicalmind

But a branch from master is not a slave by any definition. Whereas a branch is a copy of a master. To be clear, I'm not against them changing this. But it just seems odd to base it on the implication that they meant it as master/slave when it clearly isn't used that way by anyone.

This is mentioned elsewhere, but the connotation of master in the context of source control seems to be more along the lines of master used in terms of artifact creation. For example, where you have a master copy of a film or album. This is quite different from the definition of master in master/slave terms. This is definition 27 on dictionary.com.

   of or relating to a master from which copies are made: master film; master matrix; master record; master tape.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/master

> People just used the nice phrases sarcastically, and repeatedly.

As an avid player of rocket league, this happens. For example, if one team scores a goal, if they want to be mean they can spam "What a Save!" quick chat. Making fun of the other team for not saving the ball. The same for "Nice Shot!" when the opposing team misses, or "Great Pass!" if the other team makes a bad pass.

But it is still a decent system. People who abuse it are always gonna find ways to abuse things.

"We will be open sourcing our service code into our our WinGet repository on GitHub so that we can work together with Keivan and others to enable a better WinGet repository listing service."

People who decide to "work together" should carefully read and understand the terms under which they're doing so:

https://opensource.microsoft.com/pdf/microsoft-contribution-...

If you want to see what Microsoft thinks of open source and contributors, then all you have to do is read the license they want you to agree to before doing so:

https://opensource.microsoft.com/pdf/microsoft-contribution-...

And the level beyond furloughs are paycuts. Many companies are doing fairly large paycuts (20% or more) in order to retain jobs.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had to question the intelligence of family and acquaintances whom I used to hold in high regard. I've been asked to participate in "measle parties" with my kids. And to do a community stationary bike ride a the local gym to support them.

It's all about negligence and what you can prove in a court of law (or settle for in arbitration these days). A person taking an open flame and leaving it unattended or not monitoring it, is negligent in the eyes of most people (aka jurors). There is a reasonable expectation that an open flame is going to cause a fire if expose to combustable material.

But what about a person dropping a lit cigarette on a couch (either sleeping or not). A cigarette isn't an open flame so the above doesn't apply. Is there a reasonable expectation that a lit cigarette would cause a couch to catch on fire? If there is, and a jury agreed, then the person who dropped it would be negligent.

But I would expect said person's lawyer to show that a standard cigarette dropped on a couch would not and could not cause a fire. But cigarettes manufactured by company X are treated with chemical Y in order to make them non-standard. And while the client may be partially negligent (for dropping the cigarette or falling asleep), the manufacture is also partially negligent for (knowingly) adding fire sustaining chemicals to an otherwise standard cigarette. If the cigarette manufacturer could prove that a standard cigarette would catch a couch on fire, and the knowledge of this was obvious to a standard person, then the person would be 100% negligent.

This is essentially an inverse blacklist (aka refresh token whitelist) which requires server-side state. The part that these things seem to miss in my mind, especially in situations where security requirements are high, is that the authentication process is equivalent to the refresh process.

For example, you can have a complicated authentication process where you require a password, 2FA, etc. These things help ensure that the user is that user. But once that process completes, it is replaced with access_token+refresh_token. Any user can take those item and impersonate that user. Attempts to lock this down require server-side state with the ability to revoke stolen tokens if detected.

Don't get me wrong, the same issues arise if you were using cookie-based session id's or the equivalent. But once you're doing this stateful token stuff, there appears to be a lot of additional complexity without a lot of additional benefit over the traditional way.

However, if you aren't worried about this level of security, there is clearly a benefit to using this newer style.

But isn't the requirement for using the refresh token that it must be kept secure? For example, if you users authenticate in a browser, they get back an access token and a refresh token. If that refresh token were stolen on the wire or from within the browser, how would you prevent someone from using that refresh token perpetually if you're not blacklisting?

It's obviously highly dependent on the domain in which you work, but I would consider what you're saying to be a "business transaction" more than a "database transaction". If there is a 1:1 between the two then your way works. I tend to have situations where one business transaction is multiple database transactions. And the business transaction can succeed even if some of the underlying database transactions were to fail.

Yes, this is exactly the type of boilerplate I am talking about. All those usings and try/catch blocks which add needless code. It is possible to compose all of this into an aspect which then decorates your methods. Maybe I'm not being clear, so here is what I mean. Say you have a method that does some work, but calls some other thing to do some auditing. The auditing is nice, but it failing shouldn't halt the world.

  [Transaction]
  DoYourBusinessWork() { ...; AlsoAudit(); }

  [Transaction(RequiresNew, NoRollbackFor(AuditException)]
  AlsoAudit() { ... }

The TransactionScope is handled in the aspect. Commit/Rollback is all handled there is well. There are not usings or exception handlings within your methods unless you want to handle those specifically.

Cities near me have banned the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. Not specifically because of the noise, but this is a good side effect.

C# dev here as well, but from a Java background. When I first moved to C# from Java one of the best AOP usages was transaction management. Database transaction management. You could write all of the code, whether it was dependent upon the db or not, and then decorate the methods with a transaction attribute. This decoration contained all the logic to get a db connection, begin a transaction, become part of an existing one, or create a new isolated one. Any unhandled exception caused the final unwinding to rollback any work that had been done in that transaction. So many try/catch/finally's avoided and so much boilerplate code.

I have yet to find any equivalent to this .NET world. Especially of you're using EF. Either you use ADO and have your try/catch/finally with manual transaction management, or you have the EF context which is just one big blob you hope succeeds at the end.

There always seems to be some romanticism of blue collar work from white collar, and vice versa. There is a thread of truth to the things each side says, but there is also a reality that is ignored.

I'm from a blue collar family in a blue collar area and have known people from various blue collar professions. Risk and physical atrophy is very real for blue collar workers. In most trades you will work with equipment that can kill, injure and maim you. Even if you avoid the equipment (and your co-workers using the equipment in your vicinity), the physical toll of daily blue collar work is going to impact your body. Most blue collar workers I know have significant physical ailments which start in their 40's or 50's. Bad knees making it difficult to walk. Bad back making your life difficult in all kinds of ways. If you're lucky, you only end up with arthritic hands, making them useless and painful in old age.

White collar work is filled with its own issues like sedentary lifestyle, sitting all day, eye strain, etc. But there is almost a zero percent chance if you getting killed or maimed by your equipment.

You could definitely take pride in operating and maintaining large expensive machines, but you also face the reality of those machines removing your fingers, limbs, or taking your life. In blue collar work there is big heavy equipment, fumes/gas, extreme heat/cold, etc.

I spent my teens and early 20's doing blue collar work (had no plans to go to college), until watching the people around me struggle physically in their 30's made me re-think that decision. Even in the limited time I spent in the trades, I still have lasting scars and injuries from things that happened to me. My scars from white collar work have only been emotional ones. I'm not belittling that, just pointing out that the grass isn't greener.

The real question is how many US politicians espouse this worldview. They're the ones making the policy.

I think Roblox is the nearest clone. It is also very popular.

This is a service provided by the regulator...

https://www.frbservices.org/resources/central-bank/faq/exces...

What if I told you that some financial institutions could move money off to some temporary location where it sits for a few hours, then move it back. Since this money sits elsewhere for this time, it doesn't count towards their regulatory ratios.

Yep, it is the same thing over again with a different underlying loan source. And why shouldn't it be. The people responsible for the 2008 crisis are mostly still in place. In fact, many of the people who survived were promoted to more prominent positions. In fact, some say the loans of 2008 are said to be "recovering" and it's "not so bad". This translates from the expectation that these loans would lose 90% of their value and they ended up only losing 75%.

The loan originator has a different risk calculation when their ultimate intent is to offload 90% of the loan(s). Some might say it would be in their own financial interest to minimize the amount of due diligence involved in determining whether to give such loans. Plausible deniability.

From a buyer's perspective, they receive the due diligence that the originator provided. There are various risk models put in place with that information, but they are also "insured".

These are the same fundamentals that led to the 2008 crisis. Giving loans to people who weren't actually qualified. Miscalculating the risk, intentionally or not. Buyers ok with the risk, assuming the insurance would come through in the worst case.

If there is an event, or a series of events, that cause these loan takes to become insolvent, say losing jobs with no hope of getting a new one (truck drivers being replaced with self-driving trucks?), that would cause large amount of loan defaults...

I work in finance and there has been a lot of interest recently in creating financial products that are eerily like mortgage backed securities, but for other types of loans. A lot of these are (yikes) unsecured loans. A person loses their job and needs a personal loan from a bank or credit union to cover their expenses until they find a job. A person buys a car, an RV, etc.

In order to offload the risk of these loans, the original lender is packaging them up together. Then they can sell ownership of the consolidated loans to other financial institutions. The original lender is only required to retain around 10% of the consolidated loans.

Needless to say, the institution originating the loan ends up disconnected from the risk once it is sold to other financial institutions. At least they're insured, right?

The cost of labor and externalized costs would be the answer.

In the US, the workers demand a livable wage and healthcare from their employer. In other countries, the definition of livable wage is quite different (lots of poor/slave labor and no rules that protect employees from age restrictions, working hour restrictions, etc.). Some countries have government provided healthcare so that is not a cost that companies need to deal with.

Additionally, companies in other countries are able to externalize some of their major costs, especially in the area of pollution. In the US, you couldn't emit extreme amounts of waste and just dump it anywhere, you have to pay to "clean" it or face penalties. Other countries don't have such restrictions and are allowed to dump waste into rivers or the atmosphere without penalty.

So in the US you'd have to build a factory that is "clean" and complies with regulations. Then you'd have to hire and pay US workers a fair wage and likely subsidize at least a portion of their healthcare. You would also have to comply with worker regulations for these employees.

It's up to you to determine whether it should be ok to externalize these costs. Treating employees as effectively slave labor and the ability to destroy the environment and the habitats of living things.

Yes, my experience is in Midwestern USA. Other places may be quite different. Generally, the way it works here is that there are two main trade paths. One is as part of a union, which is mostly new construction. The second is non-union, which is often replacement and/or service of equipment.

If you're in a union, you basically pay union dues so that the union represents your interests. The power of unions vary widely in terms of healthcare, pensions, jobs available, etc. You get paid via a "scale" based on tenure. But in general, when new construction comes up (houses, skyscrapers, power plants, etc.) you get allocated to those jobs based on your tenure. You may work the same jobsite for years, or maybe a month. It just depends on how big the job is.

Alternatively, if your toilet is clogged, or a pipe is leaking, that is generally a service call. And that is handled, typically, by non-union work. With non-union work, you work specifically for a company. That company provides you with whatever benefits they offer (healthcare, retirement, etc.). When you work service, it almost always includes an "on-call" rotation. You get paid whatever hourly rate you can negotiate with the company and get paid overtime for off-hours work.

Unions are closest to what it sounds like you have in France. But trade unions here have lost much of their power over the years.

I come from a blue collar family. I was the first person in my family to graduate college. But that wasn't my plan initially. During summers in high school I worked installing HVAC systems. After graduating high school I started a plumbing apprenticeship. It was what I discovered during that apprenticeship that made me decide to go to college instead (during college I had a job doing carpentry as well).

I'm not saying all people in the trades are this way, but you find a lot of people who are alcoholics. It often does not impact their job, but people drinking a case of beer a day is not uncommon. If you can avoid drinking, the next problem is the damage you do to your body on the job. You are often lifting heavy things. You will be using dangerous power tools often. Any little loss of focus will lead to serious injury or worse. And even if you avoid that, there is only so much your body can take. Many people need surgeries or become crippled as they age.

Many of the people I once worked with have died from alcoholism, smoking, or related cancers. My own father is now forcefully retired due to back and knee issues. He can barely walk. He meets up monthly with the other people he worked with, who are now retired, and it is not a pretty site. I personally don't know anyone in this line of work who is happily retired and living the dream, so to speak.

The trades are very much about physical work and physical labor. Not everyone can take that kind of work for a lifetime.

The problem is that the ISP resources are shared resources. Some day we might all have 1Gbps+ fiber to our houses but today this doesn't exist. Many parts of the network you use to access the internet are common to some other set of people. So if you were to saturate your internet line, your neighbors (or possible more people) would have seriously deteriorated access. There is no way around this problem without upgrading the last mile connections everywhere, which is expensive. You're essentially paying for the most profitable and acceptable internet the ISP is willing to provide.

Maximum throughput and quality of service are not their goals. They want as many people as possible paying for service on a line they paid $X to install. And they get this by being able to throttle their user's traffic in order to allow as many people to use the same line as possible.

What you're saying is basically the same as the "unlimited" argument in terms of internet access or even cell phone plans. You don't have a personal internet connection just for you that you can use in an unlimited way. The internet line run to your neighborhood is essentially zero sum. If you take a huge chunk of the bandwidth, then other paying customers get less. Charging you more doesn't help unless you fund entirely new network lines and installation. They want everyone to have an equal size of the pie. You can't have a dozen households sharing a connection to the internet and all be streaming netflix in 4k. There simply isn't the infrastructure to support that right now, in most places. No matter how much you're willing to pay.

I worked for a software company where the CEO believed he could eliminate the programmers if he could get them to build enough "components" that could be "glued" together. He had a large team of architects and programmers working on this for multiple years. They literally had a GUI that was like a circuit board where you could drag and drop these components and connect them via a wires.

After multiple years they couldn't build a basic clock out of these components, let alone any kind of program. The CEO eventually fired all the programmers on the team because he felt they were undermining his brilliant idea and were refusing to get it done.

One of the hardest things to explain to anyone is burnout and the after effects. I've experienced it myself, along with plenty of people around me. But I also know many friends and family members who are committing themselves to their jobs beyond their ability to healthily sustain their lives. This includes working very long hours, essentially never turning work "off". It impacts their health, their relationships and their mental well-being.

Trying to warn people who have yet to deal with it seems impossible. I've had sit-down heart-to-heart conversations with people I love about commitment to work, expectation setting, work/life balances, etc. and I've never had a good outcome. I've watched people go through the inevitable physical sickness that never seems to go away, and then have that turn into emotional and mental sickness which also never seems to go away. In the end, I always wish there was something more I could do to help them head this off. But no matter how hard I've tried it still happens.

I live in North County San Diego and there are various communities of new construction available. From what I've seen, places are more willing to accept planned communities where you can account for traffic, water/sewer, schools, etc.

I'm not sure if you're talking about building a new home that replaces an existing one, or building a new home where no home has ever been built. I assume the latter, but if so, there is certainly a lot involved.

There are certainly a couple of examples of international diversity, and refugee acceptance, among two of the largest tech companies ever. Steve Jobs is the son of a Syrian refugee. Likewise, Sergey Brin's family came to this country as a Russian refugee.