forgotaccount3

> but that doesn't mean the education is actually worth it.

I don't understand how we can have this conversation when the cost and quality of the product is so, so incredibly varied.

Some people loop in room and board with college costs, but you need to live somewhere even if you aren't in college. The two decisions aren't intrinsically intertwined. Being enrolled in a college might give you some options you wouldn't have otherwise, but if it's not a superior option to what you already have then you shouldn't take it. In other words college 'room and board' cost should either be ignored because it's the same price you'd pay elsewhere or it should be a net benefit if it's a subsidized, multi-tenant solution.

Meanwhile other's go to colleges that cost $10k a year for tuition and fee's, other's go to ones that run $40k+ per year. One college might focus on education and career prep/placement, another highlights their athletic teams and greek life parties.

One college might be worth it, another might not.

> Did your parents pay for your education?

No, my family wasn't wealthy.

> Do you wish they did if they didn't?

No, holding down a job is part of being an adult. I'm 38, I paid my way through college working full time. I graduated in 3.5 years with credits from HS and winter+summer classes. What made me stand out from other applicants when applying for new jobs in 2009, was that I had experience working and they had no 'real world' experience.

> You cannot simply calculate hard ROI on a life experience.

College is still and always an option for people. Stony Brook University is an excellent choice, runs around $10k a year which is easily afforded making $20+ an hour for entry level work on Long Island. Yes, you live at home with your parents, and I'm assuming your relationship is strong enough to let you be independent otherwise they wouldn't pay for your college anyway, while commuting to college because college isn't expensive, housing is.

But if you don't go to college then you get a life experience that those who did go to college didn't get. No one is missing out on a 'life experience', you are choosing to have a different one. Or maybe it's better said that you don't get to have all of the possible life experiences, and being in a dorm on a college isn't inherently superior to others.

> Full zero trust internally

I try so hard for this, but don't even get approval to change an internal site to use https instead of http.

I get we gotta keep the new features and workflows coming, but a single resource dedicated to low hanging fruit of security could fix a lot in a very short time.

If an entity has a product that has a trillion people choosing it, the marginal benefit to society to build an entirely new product for 1000 people or so isn't worth it. The people whose time would be required to produce that second product for a very, very small 1,000 person market would better serve society by working on other goals.

Nor should those 1,000 people get to try to use the government to tell the other trillion what product they should have to buy.

> What am I to do?

Pick your priorities. There will never exist enough products to check all of the boxes that all of the people say is important to them. There is someone out there who would much rather have a product cost some amount less at the cost of accessibility features but they think a device that 'just works' is important so they buy the iPhone anyway.

> I have to imagine the vast majority of normal developers do not give a damn about security in being in security patch lifecycles on software.

I just don't think it's the developer's responsibility.

Depending on the size of the team of course, but the work that developer's do comes from someone else. Empower me to make decisions and I'll make them, but don't blame me for the choices other people make if you won't empower me.

We set up our applications and services to be multi-AZ natively. It's not particularly difficult with how many AWS services are regional or global (Admittedly, I still expect a potential DNS failure to cause issues if and when that occurs). However we are just part of a workflow, we integrate with other applications that are not multi-AZ and would be impacted. That's just out of our hands.

It's like our on-prem systems were ordered to plan out and exercise DR plans to account for a data center going offline, but we can't exercise a DR plan fully if part of the plan is 'Adapt to how application X, which is hosted in the same datacenter, also chose to fail over.' We do not own application X. There is no appetite in the business to co-ordinate the DR exercise across the entire company at the same time.

We can't even do it all in a lower environment because there are dependencies on systems that are shared across environments. Some massive, redundant filesystem that is sync'd across our data centers, but the sync is a boolean. One datacenter instance of it is the primary and the others are read-only until they get promoted. We have one of these and lower environments are just a different root folder on the system with different access patterns, but they can't make DataCenter A the primary in prod and DataCenter B the primary in UAT.

So, if there are publicly-available records incorrectly connecting you to a phone number, then you should be able to delete accounts under from the rightful owners?

If there are publicly-available records that link you to a phone number because you used to use it, then you should be able to delete the current account which is used by the current owner of it?

> What these kinds of platform agreements usually say is that you, the licensor, agree that you are fully representing that you can issue that license, and that any infringement is thus your fault and not the platform-licensee’s.

I know the comment is brief, but it's important to understand what it means when the infringement is 'your fault'.

If it's B's fault that it caused A to infringe on the copyright license of C, then that would be handled by B indemnifying A against a charge from C. C can still sue A, C can still win a suit against A, A would then utilize the contract with B to get reimbursed from B.

If B is small and can't afford to reimburse A, that's A's problem. If B goes out of business, that's A's problem.

In my field, we require this indemnification fairly frequently as we distribute content created by others where it's impossible to fully guarantee that content leaves us with no liability, in a reasonable timeframe of distribution.

We have many processes that give us a best effort to prevent us from distributing content that we would be financially liable for. We have processes where we let things go which are gray area, but the client has posted a bond with us and signed an indemnification agreement sufficient to cover the potential fine we may face if the content was an issue. Or we reject the same content from others who don't have that signed agreement and haven't posted that same bond. Sometimes we sign an agreement without a bond because we've had decades of experience with the client and the number of violations is small enough that we would eat the cost.

I don't see how AI coding agents are going to create 'more software' until the PO's and PM's of the world step back and let developer's communicate directly with the stakeholders. Or the PO's and PM's could cross-train on AI coding agents.

We are still being stressed to create all stories with such fidelity that 'any' developer can pick it up and implement it in the timeframe allowed for the size the story was given. When the story is written in that detail, we may as well copy it into an AI agent and have it implement it. But we can't do that, so we have people who have SME write up story's that sit in the backlog for 2 weeks until a developer can bring it in, so that they can spend a day implementing it (really 2 hours with 2 hours of meetings and 4 hours of video games) because the smallest pointing size we can give is 1 point and people aren't allowed to take on more than 8 points a sprint.

How can we expect things to get done faster when the team that reports work up to senior management put's such strict limitations on our throughput?

No, because you lose access to a ton of employee's who value their time more than spending 9 hours repeating the same stuff over and over.

Except it doesn't actually slow down the research. If anything it would likely drive investors to contribute more to the competitor that didn't destroy their own company and now you have the same amount of progress and a monopoly.

> This is an excellent use case for completely local, small model inference,

How small is this 'small model' inference?

Browsers especially are expected to operate on a very wide number of devices. It makes perfect sense to me to start off with a cloud driven approach and later allow people to configure it to run locally if they have the hardware to do so. Anyone with the hardware to do so is already signaling that they'd have the technical interest to make that change while having the default 'works for everyone' mode be one that doesn't require a powerful local device.

I say this as someone using a 6 year old computer and only upgraded to 8GB of ram when the latest WoW expansion was released.

Create story to add feature flag controlling access to the feature.

Immediately create story to remove said feature flag controlling access to the feature and review it during backlog refinements.

To a degree, sure, but is it really 'MITM' if the site you are trying to visit has chosen to add cloudflare into the middle?

You may as well say all load-balancers are MITM because you might connect to a different host on each attempt and there's a man in the middle influencing your connection.

What makes it any different if the website executed the same logic cloudflare is on their own box?