iconara

The [page on testing][1] suggests this:

> Where possible, and where it makes sense, you should try to test as much as possible on your host machine, not on the target device.

When I have tried this I have encountered multiple problems, first that the Rust test framework requires std, making it convoluted writing test code – but when working around that using conditional compilation, I run into other things like the `esp-hal` depending on crates that won't compile on the host.

What is the recommended way to test on the host?

  [1]: https://docs.espressif.com/projects/rust/book/application-development/testing.html

> "Then, in late June 2011 […] I faced a medical emergency requiring immediate surgery and a eight-week recovery period confined to bed. […] On July 1, 2011, HP launched the TouchPad tablet running WebOS 3.0 […] The launch was botched from the start. HP priced the TouchPad at $499 to compete directly with the iPad, but without the app ecosystem or marketing muscle to justify that premium. The device felt rushed to market, lacking the polish that could have helped it compete."

He claims to have been working with Palm closely for a year, yet he somehow must have missed how bad things were. The product was a week or two away from launch when he had to step away. To me it sounds like the bad decisions had already been made.

The big difference between Zeppelin and Jupyter is how you can easily build interactive notebooks with input fields, checkboxes, selects, etc. This is much closer to what I thought notebooks were going to evolve into back when I saw them the first time; Hypercard for the data engineer. Observable has kind of delivered that, but on the frontend. Jupyter seems to me to have gone down the path of code editor with cells, and Zeppelin unfortunately never got any traction.

> The problem is that most websites simply aren’t compliant. They choose to make a mockery of the law by offering a skewed choice: Typically a super simple opt-in (to hand them all your data) vs a highly confusing, frustrating, tedious opt-out (and sometimes even no reject option at all).

Like the Techcrunch site where this was published.

I was confused on most examples I got because they started in the middle of a block comment. That's clearly wrong, but was it an artefact of the presentation rather than the generation?

It's very important that we keep Huawei out of our 5G networks!

(what if they discovered things like this and told the citizens about it?)

This was a great read.

We went through something similar a couple of years ago, when TLS wasn't as pervasive as it is today and at first focused mostly on minimising the response size – we were already using 204 No Content, but just like the OP we had headers we didn't need to send. In the end we deployed a custom compiled nginx that responded with "204 B" instead of "204 No Content" to shave off a few more bytes. It turned out none of the clients we tested with cared about the string part of the status, just that there was a string part.

When TLS started to become more common we realised the same thing as the OP, that the certificates we had were unnecessarily large and costed us a lot, so we switched to another vendor. When ACM came we were initially excited for the convenience it offered, but took a quick look but decided it would be too expensive to use for that part of our product.

Is anyone still seeing problems like this? I found duplicate entries in our Parquet CUR reports, but not in the CSV versions (we export both, for reasons). The duplicates were from 24 September beween 00:00 and 13:00 UTC and only for Usage and DiscountedUsage. Not limited to EC2, though, it was Redshift, CloudWatch, and a lot of other services too.