remus

52 ms·

631.
by remus 6y ago
Depends on whether bandwidth is important to what you're doing. In many applications it isn't so even at the inflated prices charged by AWS et al don't really matter in the context of other expenses.
632.
by remus 6y ago
The problem is that it's misleading for consumers. If you go to bobs-pizza-chicago.com it's reaosnable to assume you're ordering directly from Bob's pizzas, not some middleman who's gonna take a big cut to pass your
633.
by remus 6y ago
> I feel like they’ve used this hack to sneak changes into the language which technically don’t break their Go 1 guarantee. The go 1 guarantee only says that existing go programs will continue to compile correctly on new releases. It doe
634.
by remus 6y ago
> Scale still has something to do with it. If you are small scale, spending an engineer month to think about and make informed decisions and implement it may be more expensive than just accepting whatever downtime happens along the road.
635.
by remus 6y ago
I agree with the principle, but in a world of finite resources you've got to pick your battles. The reality is that there is no system in existence that's gonna work perfectly for billions of users, more so when you've got ma
636.
by remus 6y ago
While I agree with the broader point that there should be avenues for someone who's account is incorrectly closed this article is pretty vapid. There are a lot of examples of individuals who have lost access to their accounts but no di
637.
by remus 6y ago
While it is a useful tool for users there are exemptions for the company. For example, if your account details have been requested as evidence in a trial then the company should not delete your account under a GDPR request.
638.
by remus 6y ago
> Isn't that literally supposed to be the sales pitch for the cloud? Get away from the infrastructure as a whole so you can focus on code, and let the cloud providers wave their magic wand to enable scaling? Clearly there are limits
639.
by remus 6y ago
That caught my eye too. I guess you would need a way of reliably being able to crash the service but that seems like a relatively low bar. Presumably the impact would also depend on how much work the service does.
640.
by remus 6y ago
> Their job was to carefully read them and double check the numbers. That's the theory. The reality is that there is no in-depth review. You're lucky if a reviewer actually reads the paper all the way through, let alone checks
641.
by remus 6y ago
> Does this mean that it is unacceptable to run a service which requires consent to share data? That seems overly restrictive - where does that leave services in which sharing data is the whole point of the service? In this case the issu
642.
by remus 6y ago
Surely that's kind of the point of X and moonshot projects? If they weren't taking on projects that required large scale, risky technical innovation then they'd just be...a normal company?
643.
by remus 6y ago
> ...sell data to Chinese government. I think this part is probably pretty hard and is certainly risky.
644.
by remus 6y ago
> And is basically nothing compared to the value of "exploiting" this bug. Out of interest, how do you think you'd go about monetising this bug? I agree that the information leakage is definitely bad, but exploiting that t
645.
by remus 6y ago
I don't think it is that odd, it's just a case of costs, scale and who you're designing for. A TOPS500 computer is gonna set you back a few million $, so you're only going to have one of them and it's economic to em
646.
by remus 6y ago
I believe so. As I understand it (this is all third hand so take it with a pinch of salt) there are other teams who are waiting for another weather window to make an attempt.
647.
by remus 6y ago
> I for one never appointed them the guardian of the walled internet. On the other hand, lots of chrome users most likely do trust google to protect them from phishing sites. For those ~3 billion users a false positive on some SaaS they&
648.
by remus 6y ago
I don't know what the implementation actually looks like in chrome, but it could work on a blacklist that's stored locally and updated on a regular basis.
649.
by remus 6y ago
In practice they effectively mean the same thing. I suspect they're going with "permanently suspended" now because they want to avoid people using phrases like they "banned free speech" or something similar to that.
650.
by remus 6y ago
AWS' support for security keys is crap in general. For example, you can only have a single key per account so it's impossible to have a backup key in case you lose your primary key.
651.
by remus 6y ago
> How is a journal committee to distinguish such papers from all the other junk? Isn't this the job of the journal, it's editors and the peer reviewers?
652.
by remus 6y ago
If everyone behaves then there is no problem with this setup, however if the middleman is improperly suggesting that y is buying directly from X when they are taking a cut then perhaps a reasonable solution is to ban middlemen altogether.
653.
by remus 6y ago
I think we're making different points here. Where a company comes up with some terms that are illegal those particular clauses in the terms are unenforcable, but if the terms are within the law then they're the contract between yo
654.
by remus 6y ago
I think this falls under the part where I said > (assuming the terms themselves are legal in the first place, for example they don't break anti-discrimination law) As you mentioned, GDPR explicitly states that you can't extort
655.
by remus 6y ago
> Can the company simply cut you off then? Yes. They're offering you the service under a particular set of terms. If you don't like those terms then the company is not obliged to adjust it's terms to suit you (assuming the
656.
by remus 6y ago
> I don’t know, seems to me that most of the sites I see them in are US sites that say they have to get consent because of GDPR. If they're asking about cookies for GDPR then that's a mistake on the part of those sites. You can
657.
by remus 6y ago
If you mean cookie banners then no, they won't stop. UK data protections laws are going to be almost entirely unchanged come 1st Jan. Having said that this doesn't mean there will be no practical effects, as our status with regard
658.
by remus 6y ago
For what it's worth those cookie popups are actually from the EU e-privacy directive (which is implemented as PECR in the UK), so they aren't because of GDPR.
659.
by remus 6y ago
Typically there's a clause along the lines of "You have 30/60/90 days to explicitly agree to the new terms. If you continue to use the service after this time you are implicitly agreeing to the new terms."
660.
by remus 6y ago
Maybe I've misread the article, but I didn't see anything about Facebook transferring user data to the US. What has changed is that FB users in the UK will be agreeing to terms with Facebook Inc in California rather than Facebook

More ›