- cortesoftA firewall is a server, too, though.
- The bastion host is a server, though, and would be exposed to the internet.
- Any server? How do you run a public website? Even if you put it behind a load balancer, the load balancer is still a “server exposed to the internet”
- Not only that, but humans also have access to all of the "training data" of hundreds of millions of years of evolution baked into our brains.
- Isn't the point that you might be one of the people who benefits from one of those follow on projects? That is kind of the whole point of open source.
Why are you making your stuff open source in the first place if you don't want other people to build off of it?
- If you are using a non-standard DNS provider that doesn’t have integration with certbot or cert-manager or whatever you are using, it is pretty easy to set up an acme-dns server to handle it
- > I do block some data-centers ASN's as I do not expect real people to come from them even though they could.
My company runs our VPN from our datacenter (although we have our own IP block, which hopefully doesn’t get blocked)
- Of course it is their decision, and they don’t OWE me an explanation.
But this is a discussion forum, and I am asking for people who agree with the decision to explain why they agree. Again, they don’t have to answer me if they don’t want to. I am just saying, “if anyone knows an argument for this type of change, I would love to hear it”
Saying they don’t have to explain their reasoning is true but not really relevant to our conversation. I am not asking THEM, I am asking HN readers.
- It doesn’t matter which one you do, the methods are literally identical other than the extra s. You can’t pick the wrong one.
This sort of choice is very common in Ruby, you can have different style choices for the same functionality. You can have blocks made with {} or do and end. You can do conditionals in the form of “a if b” or “if b then a”. You can call methods with or without parentheses.
These are all Ruby style choices, and we already have a way to enforce a particular style for a particular project with formatters like rubocop.
- Ok, I think you are arguing against something I am not saying.
I am not arguing that they don’t have the RIGHT to make the change, or that they owe me personally anything. I am not even THAT mad. I still love Ruby the most of any language, and generally think they make the right decisions.
I am simply annoyed by this decision.
And yes, I argued against this change when it was first proposed (as did many others). They obviously were not convinced.
Again, I am not arguing that they should be FORCED to do what I want, or that they did something shady or nefarious by making this change. I am not asking for any remedy.
I am simply saying I disagree with this type of change (changing a method name because some people feel the new name makes more grammatical sense, but not changing the method itself at all). The reason I commented was because this is not a “we have to deprecate things for progress” situation. They aren’t limited in any way by the current method, the syntax isn’t cumbersome (and isn’t changing), there is no other capability that is held back by having to maintain this method. It is literally just “I read it as asking ‘Does this file exist?’ rather than asking ‘This file exists?’”
Again, they are obviously free to disagree with me, which they do. I am simply arguing that we shouldn’t break syntax just because you like the way it reads better without an s. And I am asking for someone who disagrees with me (you) to explain why it is worth making this type of change.
- How do you fix this problem, though? Unless the claim is that the triage system is flawed (i.e. patients are being treated in the wrong order, and patients who don't need treatment are using resources that should go to these other patients), the only way to reduce these numbers would be to increase the number of doctors/hospitals/etc to cover the shortfall.
While it might seem like you should obviously spend more if you can save lives, there is obviously a trade off... how many of those people would have died with treatment anyway, and what would you give up if you spent more money on health care?
By itself, this data doesn't tell us if anything is being done wrong here. It could be that the triage system is perfect, and these people who are dying were on waitlists because they couldn't be saved by treatment anyway.
I know there is a gut instinct that we should spend whatever it takes to save every single life, but there has to be limits. Is spending 100 million dollars for a 5% chance to save a 60 year old worth it? It sounds horrible to ask the question, but it has to be asked.
- > Your example could be fixed in your entire codebase with a single sed invocation
I also have to hope all the dependencies I use did that, too.
But my real question is why? Why make me do it at all?
- Some deprecations are required to make progress. Many others aren't, and those are the most frustrating.
For example, ruby deprecated the `File.exists?`, and changed it to `File.exist?`, because enough people felt that the version with the `s` didn't make sense grammatically (which I disagree with, but that is not germane to my point).
For a long time, you would get warning that `exists?` was deprecated and should be replaced by `exist?`.... but why? Why couldn't they just leave `exists?` as an alias to `exist?`? There was not cost, the functions are literally identical except for one letter. While the change was trivial to fix, it added annoyance for no reason.
Although, luckily for me, with Ruby I can just make exists? an alias myself, but why make me do that?!? What is the point of removing the method that has been there forever just because you think the s is wrong?
- I don't think that was a serious suggestion, the article says it is sarcasm near the end.
But yes, that would be the worst idea ever.
- This is really not true in my experience. In fact, all my experience has been with products that aren’t THAT expensive, and the individual dev teams do decide. These are SaaS products, and sometimes the total cost is under $1000 a year, and I still can’t get prices without contacting sales.
Also, it isn’t just ICs. I have worked as a senior director, with a few dozen people reporting into me… and I still never want to talk to a sales person on the phone about a product. I want to be able to read the docs, try it out myself, maybe sign up for a small plan. Look, if you want to put the extras (support contracts, bulk discounts, contracting help, etc) behind a sales call, fine. But I need to be able to use your product at a basic level before I would ever do a sales call.
- Every time I go to a presentation about the health care options I have, it ends up just being the representative reading off a slide with the actual information. All the information I need is in print. I have never received a single piece of valuable information that wasn’t easier to get just reading the docs myself.
- I have had way too many arguments over the years with product and sales people at my job on the importance of instant self-signup. I want to be able to just pay and go, without having to talk to people or wait for things.
I know part of it is that sales wants to be able to price discriminate and wants to be able to use their sales skills on a customer, but I am never going to sign up for anything that makes me talk to someone before I can buy.
- There could be a better name for it? like `innerSanitizedHTML` or something, that makes it clear what the difference between the two calls are. There is nothing in the wording of setHTML that makes it clear it sanitizes where innerHTML doesn't.
- How easy do you have to make it to contribute to be considered “open source”. Obviously, no project accepts every single pull request. Where is the line between “open source” and “no open source” in your definition?
- Just a few months ago my company was going through some transitions and wanted to get some certs to cover us while we migrated to a different stack with let's encrypt and automated cert renewals.
We had some legacy systems on our network that needed certs and had various subdomains that prevented us from just having a wildcard cert. It ended up that we needed a few dozen subdomains with wildcard certs for each, and it was all for internal traffic between them.
The company we were using wanted to charge us $30,000 for a one year cert with that many wildcards.
We said fuck that, created our own CA, generated a big wildcard cert, and then installed the CA on the few thousand servers as a trusted root. A few months later and we are just using let's encrypt for everything, for free.
I can't believe there is a market for $30,000 certs anymore. We were just shocked that that was deemed a reasonable price to charge us.