aeorgnoieang

Yes, it's supported. It's one of the "initialization" options when you start a new game.

I'm kinda curious why none of the third party app developers considered selling Reddit requests as in-app purchases – just charge the rate Reddit charges.

I think so? PostgreSQL is very well written software AFACT.

I've run into version incompatibilities before, but it was my fault – they were expertly documented in the release notes and I just hadn't read them (or sufficiently tested the upgrade before the live performance of it).

Sure – and fail to meet their constraints

Is that even true? I don't think I've seen or read a direct apples-to-apples comparison of the two.

There could be all kinds of reasons why that is tho (if it is in fact the case).

I wouldn't think using "standalone" versus whatever would make much of a difference.

If you're using a hosted DB service, you're (probably) stuck in needing/wanting to rehearse using the hosted service (which is what the blog post describes).

If they were running the DB on 'regular server' cloud instances, it seems just as good to me to rehearse with other cloud server instances versus "standalone" servers.

I'd think using built-in replication (e.g. PostgreSQL 'logical replication') for 'dual writing' should mostly avoid inconsistencies between the two versions of the DB, no?

What's the structure that your custom DB uses?

I found your comment amusing!

Many!

I've found, repeatedly, tho that this is the best way to really understand the common pitfalls without just receiving them as 'holy writ'.

I'd imagine your friend(s) would care if you called them with questions frequently enough!

Sure!

I'm guessing we have different 'threat models' in mind.

From my perspective, I know _I_ am a moral and ethical person and therefore won't "execute an action against the user's will".

But, also from my perspective, even if "that action is allowed according to the user's credentials", I can't tell, and thus my server-side code can't tell, that a 'user' is a real person or even a legitimate user of my site or app.

The comment I was replying to claimed that "The user agent is ... is not enemy territory.".

But what came to my mind on reading that was user agent's also (commonly) perform 'card testing' and 'credential stuffing' and, even if I trust that I can securely give them access to my front-end/client-side code, I have no way to know whether they're running that code. And, even if they're running my code, there's _still_ room for malicious or nefarious action on their part.

I was NOT disagreeing with this (in the comment to which I was replying):

> Yes, the server must assume that enemy agents also exist. But it should better not deliver one to all users.

> It requires constant effort in care and feeding.

Just like all of our 'natural intelligences' (each other)!

A 'user' can do all of the things you mentioned, e.g. "insert random HTTP headers", given that they have access to all of the stuff your code does too, so any code, of yours, that runs outside of _your_ systems, _is_ in "enemy territory", as none of the code _inside_ your systems can trust anything from 'outside', even if it possibly came from your code.