> It is not possible to send Wero payments to friends & family via a web browser or on a computer
Truly independent from US companies ... If you don't have an iOS or an Android device, you are just stuck, once again
140 karma · joined December 10, 2018
> It is not possible to send Wero payments to friends & family via a web browser or on a computer
Truly independent from US companies ... If you don't have an iOS or an Android device, you are just stuck, once again
No, it was never designed around that. All methodologies of software dev don't focus too much on writing the code, but on everything else: requirement definition, quality, maintenance, speed of integrating feature, scaling the work, ...
Personally with 20 years of experience, I never seen a single company were writing the code was a bottleneck
Bezos is making a lot of money. But it doesn't mean it makes the world better. Prime or AWS can still work fine without having Bezos making tons of money
I am waiting for the vibe coding expert posts that will tell us that lines of code are not a good measure, it is a liability and you should instruct your agent to write less code ...
Show me these "facts"
It is easy to implement, easy to monitor, and will probably just work if the government do the effort to monitor and enforce it. If not, it will just be an other DNT header
There was the DNT header, that was a bit to simplistic, but was never implemented https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...
The thing people need to understand here is that the annoyance is not due to lack of technical solutions, or regulations forcing something. It is explicitly wanted by the industry so they can maximize the consent rate. The browser solution is probably the best technical/user friendly one, but ad tech/data gathering industry won't have any consent. As they control most of the web, they will never do that
> Not sure if you had a stroke while writing this, but this makes no sense.
Well, that what is happening in practice. It is an attribution game, ad companies try to have the best conversion numbers more than increasing the overall sales of a store.
I have been working in a drive to (physical) store company, we were measuring performances with an expose group + a control group and we were showing 3% visit in store increase during a campaign, while our competitors were claiming things around 10%. We knew that their tracking technology was just about "we shown an ad, they visited the store, it is because of us"
- they don't allow double tracking, so you have to trust their numbers
- if you look at IP from their "clicks", you see often a FB/Google datacenter IP range
- and for most of the traffic they might send you, they did just clever algorithm and heavy profiling to stole your organic traffic. So they get this "amazing" performance by claiming people that would have bought on your site anyway
I have seen and been working in companies trying do to the impact metrics well, but these are outliers
- websites showing ads are annoying their user and get no benefit of it
- stores/brands/people that want to advert pays a bug chunk of money for nothing - only the middle men are getting benefits
And all of the sudden, everyone will expose their data through simple API calls ?
I think I know the reason: OAuth2 naming. In the OAuth rfc https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749 they named one of the role "client", but than meant to represent a server in the more standard flow, while they named the browser "user-agent". Then people understood that "client" is the browser, so they went nuts storing access token and refresh token in the browser local storage, instead of being store in the server session storage, accessible with a session cookie.
So what people should have done https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.1 (you can see here the tokens never reach the user agent, so the server can keep them in a session, then have the user agent identified by a cookie. And what most of the people did https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-4.2
The author seems to not understand what the meaning of the P in CAP
These system are working fine, but maybe a common ground : * very few services * the main throughput is "fact" events (so something that did happen) * what you get as "Event carried state transfer" is basically the configuration. One service own it, with a classical DB and a UI, but then expose configuration to all the system with this kind of event (and all the consumers consume these read only) * usually you have to deal with eventual consistency a lot in this kind of setup (so it scales well, but there is a tradeoff)
Sources ?
As many language feature, checked exception are often misused and/or misunderstood. Too many time I have seen people blindly propagating checked exception above, and you end up having a controller method exposing a SQLException. Then for sure, it is better to use unchecked exceptions overall
* there are imports for Spring in the domain code (is Spring part of your domain?)
* you are using a mock framework in some domain tests
Also I am not sure I understand the "domain" and "ddd" packages. I am a huge supporter of splitting a "domain" package from a "application" package like you did, but then not sure where the ddd stands