Yes. For example you could hook the function that encrypts the outgoing payload and print it out before it is encrypted. And then for decryption you could hook the function that decrypts the payload as it comes in print out the result.

Going further, the API likely uses some secret key for encryption/decryption and you could hook that value out of the app as well.

Wow, that sounds really cool! Searching around i found this list: https://github.com/dweinstein/awesome-frida

Speaking of copilot, when is GitHub going to support billing for it at the organization level? Right now I would have to do a monthly reimbursement request which is a pain.

Help me understand something.

I understand that the company should pay for Copilot in principle.

However, is paying $120 per year that much when it helps you in your at least mid-five-figures job? I would ask for the reimbursement if it was annual, but filling out a form to ask for $10 back every month seems a bit over the top. Maybe I'm a spendthrift?

Am I missing something here? Would you say I am being irresponsible with my money?

I just remembered to cancel my AMC membership. That one was definitely not helping me do my job faster, and I'm not particularly regretful of losing a few dollars.

> However, is paying $120 per year that much when it helps you in your at least mid-five-figures job? I would ask for the reimbursement if it was annual, but filling out a form to ask for $10 back every month seems a bit over the top. Maybe I'm a spendthrift?

It's a slippery slope. You can't start giving freebies to your bosses (who are almost certainly much wealthier than you are) or it'll never end, just like you can't ever pay blackmail

Any $ is too much $. I claim back $1.99 every month through the horrible SAP Concur.

i had to use that at a $prevJob. My condolences

On the flip side a company may want to buy a bulk license so that it is available for free to all their developers.

You don’t want Bob being less productive just because he didn’t want to spend $10 a month.

First of all. If I was the legal team of any company I'd tell developers to stay away from copilot, since the legal status is still undecided and microsoft has a disclaimer that any legal issues fall on the users (which is probably illegal but you'd have to sue microsoft to get it overturned).

Second… It's a work tool just like any other work tool, why should I buy it out of pocket? In the end it's to the advantage of the company if I'm faster at my job.

Now I'm thinking, precisely because it's not paid by the company but by the single user, in case there is legal action, the company might shift the blame on the developer. If they reimbursed they would have no way of claiming they weren't aware.

If it's a tool to do company's work, the company should pay for it.

You can pay yearly which is not as annoying.

I reckon there's a reason why it's not available yet: legal uncertainty about the training data and generated code in a commercial context.

Right now it's only individual developers, placing the burden on them and preventing any major repercussions for Github.

This changes when (large) companies start using it, and when GitHub gives potentially copyrighed code to companies.

Personally I only use it for personal/OS projects right now, not professionally.

Are there any companies forbidding developers to use it?

If that was my role I'd totally forbid it, precisely for the reasons you indicated.

If a developer is paying on his own for it to work, who would have the legal responsibility in the end? The developer personally? Another good reason to stay away from it.

Our company is forbidding it too, for exactly the legal reasons parent posted

I see the concern here from a level perspective so I’d probably forbid it too just to be safe.

That being said…I think this line of thinking is probably mostly a nothing-burger at this point. My experience is that anything sufficiently complicated that Copilot outputs is likely to be somewhat wrong.

I’ve only really found it to be (quite) useful for speeding up small things like if statements, switches/matching, short documentation etc, which I don’t think you can copyright anyways. I wonder to what degree we can expect customization options in the future to forbid any complex code from being generated, or to constrain Copilot to helping with specific whitelisted

Perhaps, extending that last thought, there’s an ideological argument to be made that code that is so simple an AI can generate it isn’t worthy of being protected under copyright law anyways. I don’t know.

It can detect and remove any exact collisions with code from the training data now, by the way.

Would be nice, have not used it since trial because of this.

I've been using Celery on a small scale for years now and generally haven't had any serious issues except 1: reliably cancelling scheduled (future) tasks. Even using persistent revokes has been unreliable in my experience: https://docs.celeryproject.org/en/latest/userguide/workers.h...

Fwiw though, the alternatives (huey, dramatiq, rq) don't even seem to offer this feature.

Just a heads up, the links for the forward/inverse model on the github page are the same as the blacklist link.

Thanks! I just fixed it

Are unique indexes planned for any of the upcoming releases?

The primary index for the table is always unique.

We do not plan to implement secondary unique indexes. The philosophy behind RethinkDB is that if a feature cannot be efficiently scaled across multiple nodes we don't add it, and unfortunately unique secondary indexes are one such feature.

AFAIK most NoSQL databases don't implement it, and a few that do take two approaches -- forbid it on multiple shards, or just take a massive performance hit during sharding.

We chose to keep the feature out of the database. This way the application can be architected to account for it, so it remains fast as the database scales up.

This is good, for what it's worth. Having different feature sets for sharded vs unsharded is just utterly confusing, and something MongoDB got really wrong.