groestl

21 ms·

301.
by groestl 3y ago
Errors are just checked exceptions where you get the chance to introduce bugs, by unrolling the stack manually.
302.
by groestl 3y ago
> but it does not means the system is stable. This is a direct result of Go's lacking error handling, and would not be necessary if they'd have learned from C++ and Java's mistakes, instead of just repeating them.
303.
by groestl 3y ago
> it was kind of boring. As a Java dev, I love boring. That's why I picked Java. Boring means less outages. > find the simplest, plainest abstractions. Not sure I'd give that medal to Go.
304.
by groestl 3y ago
That sounds.. not great, for li-ion batteries. Like you want to stress test the safety circuits which avoid thermal runaway.
305.
by groestl 3y ago
I did that too :) I learned that sometimes, I'd ship the perfect wrong thing. And to avoid that I'd ship earlier versions faster and get back to it after feedback.
306.
by groestl 3y ago
> Shipping is the most important quality. So.. Can you trick yourself into directing the perfectionism into shipping fastest?
307.
by groestl 3y ago
Had an USB charger once that would shine through one layer of black electrical tape. Crazy.
308.
by groestl 3y ago
I mean, it's even a trope that a private detective, trying to go unnoticed in a group of people, would pull out a newspaper...
309.
by groestl 3y ago
> a bus wouldn't be literally filled with nothing but people reading magazines and books https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditThroughHistory/comments/1rkhx...
310.
by groestl 3y ago
1) might degrate into overzealous real life deduplication. I know a guy who meets with his peers (having the same name and birth date) to exchange letters once a year. 2) Usually, the update does not happen in the blue. It's often done
311.
by groestl 3y ago
> Email addresses ARE a great natural ID for an e-mail mailbox. Not even then (at least not great). Companies change domains, primaries become aliases etc..
312.
by groestl 3y ago
> it doesn’t really seem like a fractal to me. That's because you don't look close enough.
313.
by groestl 3y ago
> If the certs live much longer than the rotation window, this really is just security theatre. That's very true. > and GP's company probably misinterpreted the rotation requirements and short lifespans were implied in the r
314.
by groestl 3y ago
But a (public key) certificate is not a public key. A cert is a public key A (to private key a), signed by another key b, of which public key B is known. To rotate a cert means resigning the public key A (which is still derived from the sam
315.
by groestl 3y ago
Says who?
316.
by groestl 3y ago
> So it didn't matter how many times we rotated our secrets I'm confused, did you rotate your certs or your secrets?
317.
by groestl 3y ago
Can confirm (Austrian here)
318.
by groestl 3y ago
Don't worry, it's just the same the other way around :)
319.
by groestl 3y ago
I'd even argue that security is a general concept, and for communication, includes the concepts of confidentiality (privacy), authenticity, and integrity.
320.
by groestl 3y ago
This list, as presented in the blog post, is a great list though. Succinct and to the point. And in fact, just how I went to become a hopefully decent enough SE.
321.
by groestl 3y ago
A multi-tenant timeline (i.e. a tenant local clock) with a side channel for the testing harness to modify the time is what I found most practical when doing integration tests, and the test itself depends on time. (Edit: when testing Java se
322.
by groestl 3y ago
And to mitigate sniffing
323.
by groestl 3y ago
Small data sets suffer from bad recall in full text search. So a bit of smart fuzzyness added to the search by AI could improve the experience on locally indexed bookmarks quite well.
324.
by groestl 3y ago
> Not everyone is a line dev who codes 7 hours after a 10 minute standup. Funny enough, those often answer fastest. The busiest communicaters sometime don't answer for days.
325.
by groestl 3y ago
> and dont bother making something new. They don't even bother to add directory tracking ;)
326.
by groestl 3y ago
Yearly reports. They can be buggy, can be off by millions, due to rounding errors. They can crash. They can run for days. Nobody cares enough to rewrite them, because regulation will change before that effort amortizes. Also note that I wro
327.
by groestl 3y ago
> Running a program less then 100 times total, across all its user, is just very little for anything that could be considered commercial Running that kind of software for the central bank here. So kind of disputing your statement. > S
328.
by groestl 3y ago
> Obviously we aren't taking about some simple automation scripts here. This is moving the goalpost, and also ignores the fact that software exists on a spectrum from "simple automation script" to "messaging app used
329.
by groestl 3y ago
> This is false. I wonder where you get the confidence to make such a strong statement, which is clearly not warranted. I want to challenge you to broaden your view a bit: Not a lot of software is like Windows explorer. Not a lot of soft
330.
by groestl 3y ago
> in my experience quality is not nearly prioritized highly enough I agree with you on that one. IMHO it's because of that difficulty to know when to optimize for quality, but also because of sheer incompetence.

More ›