lugg

Pretty much this, it's an instant bullshit filter.

If I were to ever receive so many phone calls it becomes a problem I'll solve that problem. Right now I've had all of zero calls this year so I think I'll be right for the moment.

Tried that, they actively employ darkpatterns to coerce users onto desktop apps. I even asked them to stop asking for an app install on their links that you open from inside the webapp and they told me to get stuffed and use the desktop app.

Meh?

If anyone thinks they didn't already have it ..

Slack, on my phone? Are you nuts?

If you want me after hours you call. Thats the only option you have.

1., 2. Sounds like a pain in the arse to manage while I work at maintaining my work-life balance.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. There is also

3. Technically superior whose top priority of learning things got them where they are. Maintaining work life balance is just one of the many tools this person has learned over the years to be consistently effective over the long term instead of running into burnout.

Kept trying to find issue with this but the title says it all.

I'd love to see stats on how many libraries are really shared, I'd imagine it might be less than you hope (other than the big graphical ones)

Flatpak should be ok, I think when it's run inside inaccessible containers it won't be. Are the files sandboxed off from the user running in flatpak?

Right up until they're not because they pegged the version of some library.

If things were so easily automatically updated and maintained we wouldn't need flatpak.

One benefit is that if you have some software in the chain blocking updates others can update.

This may actually improve overall security.

I think I just argued myself out of hating flatpak. :/

Which is cool, because that os-tree switching thing sounds like btrfs snapshot hopping on steroids.

Flatpak uses kernel namespaces (like docker) to run software with a bundled set of libraries. From their FAQ:

> Flatpak mostly deployed as a convenient library bundling technology early on, with the sandboxing or containerization being phased in over time for most applications.

I don't really know if sandboxing is worth it for me. Running everything inside docker cotnaienrs sounds like an absolute nightmare when it comes to troubleshooting. You might think logs and things would be well defined and put in the right place for the OS to pick up, but if things were so well behaved we wouldn't feel the need for sandboxing now would we.

Flatpaking all the things? I'm not sure why there is this push for Linux to have the "download and double click" install experience of windows / Mac. Convenient to install sure, but as a user its a nightmare to maintain/update.

All people on Linux really need is an xdg-open standard for opening a package manager / running an install command.

Git remotes is the standard.

Hub is pretty much a glorified ref transformer.

You can do a lot of what it does with plain old aliases and really should if you work with multiple forges.

You're also only talking about a single git use case which not everyone follows, even within a single forge.

Something tackling the problem from the other end is phabricator which integrates each VCS into the same forge platform. Well, mostly (badly), it's kind of a total mess with specific things you need to work around for each.

I can see the same thing happening to anything trying it from the forge end.

Just because gitlab has pull requests does not mean that GitHub born idea is the best or will even stay.

How would you marry up Gerrit to GitHub (you can't).

What you're asking for only really works for something following gitflow, which would be kind of stupid to base a standard on because it's broken by design and doesn't scale. But you would have to because otherwise GitHub won't use it.

How is that simple?

Just fine them.

There goes my afternoon.

> This includes most people.

Fixed that for you.

ISPs are a crapshoot the world over apart from very few countries. Almost all block or mess with torrent sites.

Off the back of a trip overseas, the "free wifi" is also a mess with DNS hijacking for no other reason than to feed you a cookie / limit access for essentially no good reason. Breaking that shitshow when chrome eventually follows suit will be a nice change for users.

AMP, Facebook groups, WordPress.com sites, shared hosting, download sites etc.

Thinking this is a step backwards is pretty naive.

I'm confused, why should type of energy usage be made public, forceably?

Ok if we want to go down this route but I'm not really reading any reasons for forcing this.

How can it? Using what standard? America's? Australia's? Where do you even get the impression they should have to and that it's so out of this world that they don't "have to"?

You haven't mentioned how I am limiting myself.

How am I missing out?

Most if not all of those companies are uninteresting to me.

And I don't think any of them would shy away from hiring me for my lack of experience with azure / ms tech. They might not hire me for other reasons but that would not be one of the reasons.

It's more complicated than this. I listened, I cared, for years. Then I stopped. How can I continue caring when everyone around me exploits the way things are and gets ahead because of it?

What we need is a mass awakening. We need everyone to care at the same time to see anything change.

We won't act unless we have role models acting before our very eyes. We won't act untile there is a problem directly in front of us. Until that time you may count on the status quo continuuing.

No, it's not clear at all. You can read it either way. Github is now a product for Microsoft. Teams work on products. The title was misleading and poorly written.

Title could have been, "Scaling Microsofts GitHub usage from 2k to 25k teams."

Or "Migrating the remaining Microsoft engineers into GitHub organisations, a scaling story from 2k to 25k contributors.

> Did you know that Microsoft built and open sourced an orchestrator that can manage tens if millions of nodes with totally diverse workloads (containers, VMs, and bare metal), nested hypervisors, and even nested orchestrators in a secure multi tenant context?

No, and I don't really care. Is there something wrong with that?

Am I limiting myself by ruling them out from the get go based on past behaviour?

After a decade of out right ignorance of windows services what would it take for me to catch up in order to even begin to unpack and then finally even begin to leverage what you just mentioned?

Is it even worth the time for me to try and grok it?

Am I laughing that azure runs more Linux than windows? No. I assumed that was the case years ago because you're an idiot if you're still stucking on that windows teet after all they've done. And I don't care that you think Im a close minded idiot for speaking that truth.

Why? Because not a single employer that matters to me thinks your knowledge of windows crapware is a competitive advantage in the environments most real tech operates in.

Call me when Google starts running search off of windows boxes.

Unless a plane is delayed or cancelled at the last minute, which in TXL's case is frequent. This results in a gate full of too many people and a slow down moving anyone anywhere.

It's not personnel, they have to stop the queues from moving through security in order to prevent over crowding in the gate rooms which, are always over packed full of people.

Berlin's awful setup results in delays across the region, it's no wonder other airports are reluctant to link there and divert to Frankfurt instead.

I've always used a soft limit of 120.

I use it as an indicator that I am either nested too deeply or my functions have too many parameters. Or just in general my code is too complex / hard to read after the fact.

Sometimes things call to break the soft limit that is fine, it's only a signal of potential problems, not an indicator of definite problems.

And fwiw, if you can't refactor like that without concern it's a language design failure. A pretty big one actually.

Yes, and when the main character hears it for the first time he mentions it's a very significant number before being cut off by someone who thinks they know better.

:P

Thats uh, a very significant number.

Both of those missions are at odds with improving security. Try harder.

All they did was make sure breakable-by-them encryption was in use much longer than it should have been. I'd hardly call it a mixed track record.

> However, the NSA also ensured that the key size was drastically reduced such that they could break it by brute force attack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard

Are people really so quick to forget?

https://www.miracl.com/press/backdoors-in-nist-elliptic-curv...

Their goals are at the very least nationalist.

As a non US citizen why should I trust them at all?

Their main directive errodes my privacy on most levels in most sense of the words.