9dev

41 ms·

931.
by 9dev 11mo ago
There are serious efforts and working prototypes of printing houses. This works surprisingly well, allows construction in days instead of months, and shows a lot of promise. It’s a great rabbit hole to fall into!
932.
Show HN: Avoid Docker builds in GH Actions if the context didn't change(github.com)
2 points by 9dev 11mo ago|0 comments
933.
by 9dev 11mo ago
A European one. Pulling the kind of tricks the NSA does is considerably harder if you don’t have a secret court with secret orders.
934.
by 9dev 11mo ago
"SSL added and removed here :-)" It’s not about vibes, but clear proof of a strategy to undermine global information security. Is anyone suppose to believe they don’t do that anymore?
935.
by 9dev 11mo ago
It doesn’t matter either way. Intel is an American company as well, and thus unsuitable as a trust root.
936.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> I don't see how you solve this with microservices. I don't think I implied that microservices are the solution, really. You can have a replicated monolith, but that absolutely adds complexity of its own. > But sure let&#x2
937.
by 9dev 11mo ago
They are: But now you've expanded the definition of "a single monolith with postgres" to multiple replicas that need to be updated in sync, you've suddenly got shared state across multiple, fully isolated processes (in t
938.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Yeah, that was my entire point really—there's some complexity that's just warranted. It's similar to a proper risk assessment analysis: The goal isn't to avoid all possible risks, but accepting some risk factors as long
939.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> they are there to help tame and offload complexity, not just complexity for complexity'a sake Theoretically. Practically, you're hunting for the reason why your GitHub token doesn't allow you to install a private package
940.
by 9dev 11mo ago
You don't. When your server crashes, your availability is zero. It might crash because of a myriad of reasons; at some times, you might need to update the kernel to patch a security issue for example, and are forced to take your app do
941.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Because it adds friction, and whoever introduces that CI pipeline will be the one getting messages from annoyed developers, saying "your pipeline isn't working again". It's definitely a source of complexity on its own, s
942.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> Having secret management or CI (pretty much mandatory!) does not dictate the architecture of the application at all. Oh, it absolutely does. You need some way to get your secrets into the application, at build- or at runtime, for one,
943.
by 9dev 11mo ago
I've been involved in bootstrapping the infrastructure for several companies. You always start small, and add more components over time. I dare say, on the projects I was involved, we were fairly successful in balancing complexity, but
944.
by 9dev 11mo ago
It's sure a corny stance to hold if you're navigating an infrastructure nightmare daily, but in my opinion, much of the complexity addresses not technical, but organisational issues: You want straightforward, self-contained deploy
945.
by 9dev 11mo ago
To be clear, I don't think the paperclip scenario is a realistic one. The point was that it's fairly easy to conceive an AI system that's simultaneously extremely savant and therefore dangerous in a single domain, yet entirel
946.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Both are valid concerns, no need to decide. Take the USA: They are currently lead by a patently dumb president who fucks up the global economy, and at the same time they are powerful enough to do so! For a more serious example, consider the
947.
by 9dev 11mo ago
What you are looking for is forwarding an X session via SSH, and that has been supported since the dawn of time.
948.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Tell me again please how someone feeling they have a different sexual identity from their biological body—and acting upon that with a medical procedure—negatively affects others? This isn't a "belief" thing, but a fundamental
949.
by 9dev 11mo ago
If they consider doing that, they will without LLMs or with them. Raise your juniors right.
950.
by 9dev 11mo ago
That’s just moving the goalposts. Are you trying to say that in your opinion, trans people should be okay with that?
951.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> why not simply write something new. Because of backwards compatibility. You don’t rewrite Linux from scratch to fix old mistakes, that’s making a new system altogether. And I’m pretty sure there are some people doing just that. But sti
952.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> At least most Christians and Muslims accept that others don't believe in their religion and, for the most part, don't force them to act as if they do. Just like most trans people accept that others don’t understand their wa
953.
by 9dev 11mo ago
You can’t hold an entire group of people responsible for the actions of a few extremists, unless you want to stop Christians and Muslims as well. And don’t get me started on all the shit men pull off worldwide, yet I don’t see you rallying
954.
by 9dev 11mo ago
No no no, you see, you got it all wrong. If the Wikipedia article on, let’s say, transsexualism, says that’s an orientation, not a disease—then that’s leftist bias . Removing that bias means correcting it to say it’s a mental illness, obvi
955.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Nothing about that seems promising! The one single thing you want from an Encyclopedia is compressing factual information into high-density overviews. You need to be able to trust the article to be faithful to its sources. Wikipedia mods ar
956.
by 9dev 11mo ago
They have been a sustainable business from the start, and it shows.
957.
by 9dev 11mo ago
What other big tech is there really, apart from Chinese tech (which is already avoided across Europe)?
958.
by 9dev 11mo ago
> If you are saying that you there is a correct definition within the social sciences, can you cite an authoritative source for that? You can start at Wikipedia, for example, which quotes Thomas Hobbes: > the state of nature for huma
959.
by 9dev 11mo ago
Again, you are treating these terms as equal to their contemporary meaning in bipartisan US politics, when they are pretty well-defined terms for describing political ideology in general. Part of that is one of the pillars of conservatism,
960.
by 9dev 11mo ago
You’re talking about parties, while I was referring to ideology. And in ideological terms, while a HN comment isn’t scientific, I think I represented the ideology of conservatism and liberalism correctly here, so call out the social science

More ›