znkr

If you solve authentication separately from authorization, this is what happens

You mean like driving a car?

We put asterisks next to proofs that use the axiom of choice. If a machine comes up with proof that’s not verifiable by humans, you can very well be sure that there will be asterisks.

+1 The worst code I had to maintain was code that tried to follow DRY (without the trying to understand what the original intention of that principle was). The only way out of that mess was widespread code duplication.

> It makes even less sense in an era of LLMs.

I would argue that out makes even more sense in the era of LLMs. LLM shaped tasks are tasks that we would hand out to junior engineers. Now, I can implement one of these tasks in 1hr instead of waiting for a junior engineer to finish this in 1-3 days. This means the equation for investing in junior engineers has shifted towards disfavoring investment.

Moving running computers around and maintaining connection would have required large trucks and very long cables at the time the internet was invented.

LISP ;-)

I am sure they have this. What tends to happen is that the gradual rollout system becomes too slow for some rare, low latency rollout requirements, so a config system is introduced that fulfills the requirements. For example, let’s say you have a gradual rollout for binaries (slow) and configuration (fast). Over time, the fast rollout of the configuration system will cause outages, so it’s slowed down. Then a requirement pops up for which the config system is too slow and someone identifies a global system with no gradual rollout (e.g. a database) to be used as the solution. That solution will be compliant with all the processes that have been introduced to the letter, because so far nobody has thought of using a single database row for global configuration yet. Add new processes whenever this happens and at some point everything will be too slow and taking on more risk becomes necessary to stay competitive. So processes are adjusted. Repeat forever.

Maybe it helps to think of matrix multiplication as a special case of the composition of linear transformation. In the finite dimensional case they can be expressed as matrix multiplications.

The whole article starts with the implicit assumption that all bases are orthonormal and then throws linear algebra out of the window completely.

Bismarck was afraid of workers unionizing and transformed a working healthcare system owned by workers into a state owned one. That move significantly reduced the utility of worker unions, which was the goal behind it.

I don’t think it’s a wordplay with the r-word, but rather a reference to the famous Shakespeare quote: “Hoist with his own petard”. It’s become an English proverb. (A petard is a smallish bomb)