Someone saying "This is complex but I think I have the core idea" and someone to responding "That's not the core idea at all" is hilarious and sad. BUT ironically what you just laid out about TF is exactly the same - you just manually trigger the loop (via CI/CD) instead of a thing waiting for new configs to be loaded. The state file you're referencing is just a cache of the current state and TF reconciles the old and new state.
Always had the conceptual model that terraform executes something that resembles a merge using a three way diff.
There’s the state file (base commit, what the system looked like the last time terraform succesfully executed). The current system (the main branch, which might have changed since you “branched off”) and the terraform files (your branch)
Running terraform then merges your branch into main.
Now that I’m writing this down, I realize I never really checked if this is accurate, tf apply works regardless of course.
and then the rest of the owl is working out the merge conflicts :-D
I don't know how to have a cute git analogy for "but first, git deletes your production database, and then recreates it, because some attribute changed that made the provider angry"
Think of otel as just a standard data format for your logs/traces/metrics that your backend(s) emit, and some open source libraries for dealing with that data. You can pipe it straight to an observability vendor that accepts these formats (pretty much everyone does - datadog, stackdriver, etc) or you can simply write the data to a database and wire up your own dashboards on top of it (i.e. graphana).
Otel can take a little while to understand because, like many standards, it's designed by committee and the code/documentation will reflect that. LLMs can help but the last time I was asking them about otel they constantly gave me code that was out of date with the latest otel libraries.
> While we knew where to look, this investigation had already taken weeks and things took a turn for the worse when we hit the issue again on February 23rd.
It blows me away an issue like this could take weeks to track down. If I were in any leadership position at this company I'd be rolling heads with the lack of telemetry or domain knowledge for these systems.
I can't say I'm surprised, TBH. I had a rough idea of where the problem might lie just by reading the title of the post. But I was fortunate enough to do an undergraduate degree where concurrency was actually taught, plus I've learned a lot over the years working in highly-concurrent, asynchronous environments.
Concurrent programming has been mainstream for some time now, but I don't think the level of expertise of most engineers has kept up. That becomes most apparent when software starts hitting concurrency pitfalls: performance problems, deadlocks, UAFs, and so on...
In my career I've had to deal with two big outages that took over a week to diagnose and fix. One of those involved my code, though the conditions that caused it involved bugs in others' code interacting with bugs in mine such that in isolation none of them would have caused an outage. The first one took two weeks to diagnose, and I had to write specialty tools to help diagnose it. The second took lots of data gathering, code inspection, and making and testing many hypotheses. In neither case did heads roll. The staff who go through such a trial by fire come out of it all the more valuable than before, and that includes those whose "fault" it might have been.
Sometimes you can't have the domain knowledge you'd want beforehand. The reasons vary a great deal. For example, the software in question might be commercial, and you might not have an alternative vendor to switch to. Other times your "bus factor" might have dropped to uncomfortably small values through no fault of anyone in the organization (people leaving too quickly for reasons having nothing to do with the way the org is run, people dying, headcount and budgets not allowing for remediating the situation, and just having way too many critical systems whose bus factor to keep wide at all times).
Hacker News is a social media site for people to talk about (usually) tech-related news. It might be hosted by, and fully run by, a tech startup incubator, but Y Combinator isn't exactly a household name, and the only real indication that this site is related to the incubator is the domain name.
It's pretty easy to come across this site if you're just generally interested in tech stuff (I think everybody I talk to knows exactly what I refer to if I say "the orange site"), and if you're someone who's interested in tech but not particularly plugged into things like the mechanics of startups or business, well, there's a lot on here that's not related to that.
I'm sure if someone came to a site called 'hacker news' and didn't delve deeper past the main content board, then it would be easy to not organically discover what a VC might be.
It's just weird I guess as someone thats been here a while that there are users that don't know the word VC given its history in the VC/tech startup community.
Context matters though. If you're in a place that has always been about baseball and you say "I have to admit I don't know what a pitcher is" it's going to be a bit weird for the regulars.
In this case though I guess it's just hard for me to recognise how much the focus of this site has shifted and that people can come here that seemingly have no interest in startups/tech/vc.
It's not a baseball place. It's equivalent to a sports place and one person won't know what a pitcher is and another won't know what a quarterback is. The scope of HN is quite large and diverse. Then again, even on baseball forums there will be a new person from time to time. It's ok.
My Jewish friend once told me, specifically discussing this wire, that Jews consider finding loopholes in their own rules a national pastime. The same thing goes for the hotels where someone is paid to wave their hand in front of automatic doors so the guests don't force the door to "work" for them or the elevators that run 24/7, stopping at every floor so they don't have to even work by pressing a button.
My favourite in this genre comes from a physics DPhil student I knew in Oxford: He insisted that it was permissible for him to work in the lab on Shabbat because after all he was really just studying the works of God and so it was no different in character from reading the Torah.
I'm not sure entirely how serious this argument was, but he wasn't entirely unobservant; he made a point of not playing in orchestra on Friday evenings (after dusk).
Just asked my wife about this, who grew up Jewish and also loves debating these things as she's a programmer. Apparently the rules describe certain activities that one is not allowed to do, which in practice block most people from doing their profession. Reading books is not on that list, but nowhere does it say that the book needs to be the Torah. So it would definitely be allowed to read research papers, as long as you don't take notes (because writing is forbidden). Even a book critic could be reading books during shabat without any issues.
Operating a particle accelerator (ie actually pressing the buttons) would probably be a no-go, but if you set it up beforehand and it runs through the weekend without interaction then that would be fine.
Yes. But not if you set up a timer to do it automatically. (As long as you set up the timer before shabat obviously)
There is also apparently a slightly more technologically minded sub-sect of Judaism which considers only electricity generators that actually burn things (coal, oil, gas, biomass, etc) to be "fire". Battery powered devices are therefore OK, as would be things purely powered by solar power (as the sun is technically not "on fire") nucear power or even hydroelectric power. For the vast majority of electricity grids though, at least a percentage of generation will be from fueled generators and so forbidden on shabat.
I'm pretty sure 99.999% of observant Jewish people would consider this work but there is a lot of room for interpretation in Judaism and in the end it's between you, your belief, and God. An interesting piece of trivia there is that in Yom Kippur you can atone for sins to god but you can not atone for sins to other people without getting reconciliation.
In general a lot of scientists who are followers of theistic religions do think there is a religious motivation in their work, it that it is the study of God's creation so I would take it seriously.
I would argue that even a non-believer who studies the sciences in pursuit or truth and appreciates the beauty they reveal is doing God's work.
I am not the brightest spark as it took me a few months of living in a heavily Jewish area to realise that the pedestrian traffics light were configured to run every cycle so they didn't have to press the button. Probably a lot more details I also missed.
I doubt very much this is related to any local Jewish population. Most traffic buttons are placebos these days; the pedestrian signals automatically signal alongside the traffic lights.
The exception would be low-pedestrian-volume areas with lights and crossings reserved specifically for pedestrians.
You're probably correct, but having lived in northern Brooklyn for almost a decade, I wouldn't be surprised if those communities had a hand in that type of infrastructure. They already have their own police force.
Buttons in pedestrian traffic lights are far from universal, my country is not Jewish and pedestrian lights without a button are very common.
Actually I dislike those with buttons. They send the message that cars passing and pedestrians stopping is the "default", and ensure that a lone pedestrian always has to stop, regardless of luck, while establishing the ritual that pedestrians need to "beg" for being allowed to cross. In my view, cars already have too many privileges in cities, it's not the end of the world if they have to stop at an empty crossing from time to time (something that pedestrians also have to do often).
Cars have much more inertia and often more traffic than pedestrians, it makes sense to give them right of way and reduce the ambiguity with traffic control devices in most places.
If you take sidewalks away completely and turn everything into a big highway you’ll have even less pedestrian traffic. That doesn’t make it good policy.
In my area at least, if there is a pedestrian crossing across a single road, it will not be automatic, but if it's near a junction, where the lights would need to toggle anyway, the button does nothing, and it's just on a fixed timer
Judging by the previous posts/comments of the user you are replying to, I doubt they are capable of understanding your comment, if they are even a real person.
One thing I've learned working for startups is if you're working for a founder who's already had a previous successful startup exit(s), two things are true:
1. the founder already has generational wealth and this current company means practically nothing to them.
2. they've already learned every trick in the book to keep the company's value in their own pocket and out of the hands of their employees.
This seems highly cynical. If the current company means practically nothing to them, why would they be bothering with it at all, especially given that they could be doing almost anything else they wanted, given their generational wealth?
OP is making broad statements, and you might even be right about your guy. But even if your founder is not super wealthy from the first exit, your current startup could go under and if that happens employees will be left with absolutely nothing. Him, on the other hand, will probably have a golden parachute to land with. Either way he will be now be a "serial entrepreneur" and will be able to utilize his VC friends to start the next thing in no time. He's going to be fine.
And there's no telling what he will do if your startup does actually end up being worth something. Transfer the IP to a new company and fire everyone? Introduce new share classes for investors and dilute everyone else to zero? Sell the employees (acquihire) to some horrible BigCorp™ and then retire to Hawaii? No shortage of stunts they could pull once real money is on the table.
I've been on HN since 2007 and believe I have seen literally every possible permutation of this particular debate, and I don't have a stake in it. Value your equity at $0 unless you have a very good reason not to. The comment I replied to make falsifiable claim, and I felt it was worth falsifying, so that's what I did.
Yes. CR has had this feature since day 1, people just don't bother to read the docs and would rather write long blog posts blaming their cloud provider for manufacturing the gun they shot themself in the foot with.
If you go back and search hacker news for any article involving JWTs or OAuth you’ll find hundreds of comments of circular arguments over what a JWT is and is not. People never seem to be able to separate the two.
I still don't really understand them. The last time I used them was for a client probably in 2016 or 2018, and I forgot everything I learned about them. But they have an RFC so that's pretty cool.
JSON Web Tokens are part of the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) family of standards which are really just containers for cryptographic primitives in a web-friendly representation. Most people are aware of JWS (signed payloads) but there are also JWE (encrypted payloads) and JWK (key payloads). If you're building any sort of cryptographic system that needs to represent encrypted/signed values or keys, you can use JOSE to represent these primitives without having to reinvent the wheel. By far the biggest use of JOSE is in authentication systems where JWS are used as signed bearer tokens but that's just one application and there are many others. They arent perfect, but they filled an important gap when they were created and made it much easier to deal with crypto at an application layer compared with all of hte binary formats that are used in things like TLS.
reply