nazcan

> having a main branch allows a casual observer(management) to browse your project in the gui and see what is currently live.

I never found this very compelling. What is main in that world is not the source of truth, and it's rare to have a system atomically in one state or the other - but normally there are progressive rollouts. And if you ever need to rollback in production, I assume no one is changing where main is.

> I like the opportunity to force a second set of testing, and code review. Especially if the team is big enough that you can have different people doing code review for each branch.

To be explicit for code review, do you mean there is (1) main, (1) development, and then a bunch feature branches - and that there is review when merging into development and main? Having a two-tiered review process seems extremely difficult to do - versus just having more reviewers on the first merge - especially dealing with merge conflicts and needing to merge again into development.

> You can also have your CI/CD do longer more thorough testing while merging to main vs development.

I think it's fair to do more testing later. I think the equivalent I'm used to (which is pretty close, so not a huge difference), is only building releases from the commit that passed the bigger/slower tests.

But also, assuming there are multiple deployments coming from one repo, if you block merging into main, that means you'd be blocking on all tests passing - while release branches for a given product can select a subset of tests when deciding on release candidates.

> If it's a project with a single deployment, version tagging is kind of pointless, it's much easier to just use a branch to reflect what is live, and roll back to a merge commit if you have to. Then you can still merge directly to main in the event of a hotfix.

I think it's worth maintaining the flexibility of how many releases come from a repo. Needing to fork repos just because you want another deployable release in the future seems painful to me.

As long as it includes websites made by commercial entities. Only standardized API endpoints!

I think the question of is a business allowed to have something free only for humans (presumably with advertising) does not have a clear best answer - politicians can decide.

Every business (even news) needs a business model.

Good to know. As someone on the ARIN side, I always found the fees reasonable.

This is one thing I've heard repeated - that USD needs to be spent in America - seems like other countries could just transact with it directly.

I think the nuance is that is doesn't produce what it's worth - it's that it's value to society is more than what people are willing to pay for it (and also more than what it costs to produce).

Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but these dynamics seem pretty strong.

Deploying a bare metal k8s cluster with Talos on OVH. Talos is awesome.

But doesn't extracting maximum profits at the expense of the company itself mean front loading profits - i.e. long-term worse outcomes?

How does a PE company make money from that - unless who they sell it to is not saavu enough to realize it?

I'm quite interested in a k8s-native file-system that makes use of local persistent volumes. I'm running cockroachDB in my cluster (not yet with local persistent volumes.. but getting closer).

Anyone have any suggestions?

Is it somehow easier to have binding arbitration in an app vs. a website, assuming there is an account needed for both?

I think value is not proportional to bytes - an AI only needs to read a page once to add it to its model, and then served the effectively cached data many times.

As far as I know the reason you don't preach abstinence, beyond enforcing your morals, is that it is not effective.

So the question on if this effectively reduce scams is the first question to answer.

For those in Canada, I've been working on SnapEntry - which automates entry into apartment buildings with one time use codes.

I got tired of missing deliveries, so now software answers the buzzer.

Using a mix of telephony, transcriptions, and websockets. Webserver is in C++.

https://snapentry.ca

What does this mean? You don't get to write off the difference between your "target price" and actual sale price.

And a reminder that companies always do better if they make more money, not point in purposeful losses (unless you are getting a side benefit like goodwill from charity).

Note that it doesn't apply to NATO against NATO.

Is there recent news on safari supporting webtransport?

But this leads to the question if the province is not doing it's job, what do you do as the feds?

Not saying they did right, but curious.

While I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, it sounds like an opportunity for disruption.

I think it's clear that users should be able to have their own agents that make these decisions. If you want an agent that always defers to you and asks about Internet access, great. If you want one that accepts it all great. If you want one that uses some fancy logic, great.

Density has hurt walkability?

With what source of revenue?

Prices have come down a lot. I have reasonable plans from black Friday at like $30ish/month.

To confirm, it is just posted in the sense of crawling the web site, right? They don't post structured data I assume.

These are well-lit paths, that try to make it easy to take a server you want to run in production, and give you reasonable releases/monitoring/canarying for free (e.g. no one should have to configure something that stops pushes that are causing crashes of the updates tasks).

But at least in Canada, only have low fees if they are in person - not online.

That does not include the cost of staff processing it.

Care to provide a concrete example of a difference? Curious.

The key is just which time is faster. If you are able to just listen to it once, and note a few errors, and slightly adjust, it may still may be much faster to use AI.

It's hard to ensure, and if a developer wants to, they can show ads themselves.