devhead

I wonder if this may mean we will see the Terraform dogmatic approach to declining to implement much requested functionality in the name of "it doesn't fit our ideals" go by the wayside. I hope so, otherwise, OpenTofu here I come; or well, I'm sure someone's got a ML infra tool in the works by now.

I always have mixed feelings when a software company like this grabs their bag and leaves the community that helped build them, high and dry; good for them but still bad for everyone else nine out of ten times.

we'll see what the courts say with this. American government used to decry "the great china firewall" yet here they come all holding hands to raise up an American one, against the American people. This is not a Ban on TikTok, it is a blockage and suppression of our freedom of speech, and to freely associate.

The US government suddenly can find common grounds to do something and it's to restrict US? no thanks.

It's not a ban on TikTok; they are proposing a restriction that will be applied to American companies in order to try and block American's access to an online web service.

I do not agree with such restrictions nor would I if the role was reversed; in my opinion, any politician that supports such an encroachment on our rights will never have my support or vote. I would additionally be open to boycotting their corporate and wealthy donors since they seem to only listen to money.

I do however, wholeheartedly support enacting legislation to protect our data, require security around it and to block the sale of it.

agreed, such as Equifax; after it was breached and our, coughs, "stolen data" was stolen from them.

i second this approach, it's a good practice to meet people where they are at and as it is an "open minded" environment, this should be the expectation, not a conformity to the norm.

i'll take one of each, for science; will report back in a few years how i'm getting along.

surprised no one mentioned, give them a promotion.

reminds me of the convo i had with the ceo randomly after an episode of Silicon Valley and he asked about security because they hacked a fridge...i said yep, super easy; we had a bigger budget the next week :D

at least they survived Y2K :D

i suspect they meant the CIO; i agree, it was their role to relay the real need here not just push a request over without already securing approval from the rest of their c suite peers.

I worked for a crypto startup for a year, mostly as a side hustle; not on there because ftx crashed and Alameda Research was an investor. 80% of us were laid off two weeks before christmas. they don't deserve a mention and i don't need the embarrassment.

for such an anti-customer change; the lack of depth in their announcement is terrifying. Perhaps their impacted customer base is so low they just don't care, but if this is all they're putting out about it shame on them. i have no horse in this race; happily existing in AWS w/o issues. :D

hope they sting him after they are done buzzing. he is not a candidate I could ever get behind. we are still dealing with the fallout of the last morally bankrupt president who is trying to run again.

i would add that this must include executives; 2 years ago we all got the same 3% while executives got 40% (while overseeing a stock drop of 65%).

one side effect though is w/o equity it's easy to feel a lack of motivation to work as hard if you get the same raise as everyone else who might not be doing great work.

keeping your servers on the public network is not a good idea for a variety of reasons such as security, cost, control, access and compliance.

AWS makes money, it's a trade off; you can just as well put up an ec2 as a nat that is able to auto scale if you need to give your servers access. or only attach one during updates, etc.

edit: word