Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | dbetteridge's commentslogin

Question from a casual bystander, why not have a virtual/staging mini node that receives these feature file changes first and catches errors to veto full production push?

Or you do have something like this but the specific db permission change in this context only failed in production


I think the reasoning behind this is because of the nature of the file being pushed - from the post mortem:

"This feature file is refreshed every few minutes and published to our entire network and allows us to react to variations in traffic flows across the Internet. It allows us to react to new types of bots and new bot attacks. So it’s critical that it is rolled out frequently and rapidly as bad actors change their tactics quickly."


In this case, the file fails quickly. A pretest that consists of just attempting to load the file would have caught it. Minutes is more than enough time to perform such a check.


Doesn't help you much I imagine, but the one time we had a dev like this he was fired after multiple complaints to the team lead.


Politics should follow the exponential backoff model xD

Every time your law fails to pass you cannot revisit it for a longer period of time.

1year 5years 10years Etc

Means that laws with enough political will get passed, but bad laws can be more easily blocked.


This doesn't fit at all with how governance and politics works in reality. Rapid changes to society or a crisis can suddenly make deeply unpopular ideas very popular.


Great. Now, define how we can determine if two bills are the same 'your law' (Who decides? Lifetime-appointed partisan judges? The old legislature? The new legislature? The executive god-king?).

... And then figure out how to prevent poison-pill sabotage, because the best way to prevent a legislature from ever passing becomes 'deliberately draft a really bad version of it, and have your party veto it'.

Giving a one-time majority in a legislature a way to constrain anything the next 10 years of legislatures try to do is a terrible idea.


It's a reverse of what you're describing, but a similar mechanism like this in Canada is their notwithstanding clause.

If the Supreme Court of Canada rules a law unconstitutional, the government in power can overrule their ruling by using the notwithstanding clause. However, the notwithstanding clause override to keep the law in effect only lasts for five years. Subsequent legislatures have to keep renewing the override or the Supreme Court's ruling of unconstitutionality takes effect again.


> Giving a one-time majority in a legislature a way to constrain anything the next 10 years of legislatures try to do is a terrible idea.

There's no option to do that though. To block something for 10 years you'd have to stiff it at least 3 times, 1 and 5 years apart (which would mean doing it across at least two legislative terms).


I don't think you understand how legislatures around the world work, if you think this wouldn't be gamed to absurdity.

Important bills generally don't go to a vote unless everyone involved knows exactly how many votes they are going to get. Your proposal won't actually stop anything that a majority wants passed from passing - as long as a minority can't get ahead of them by poisoning the bill.

Bills are not single-issue. Any bill - even the best - can be trivially tanked by attaching a bunch of awful garbage to it. You are giving a single person (or whatever the minimum quorum is for putting a bill to vote) the power to kill, for years, progress on any issue - by putting forward their own version that's saddled with crap.

This would immediately be abused to disastrous effect.

You will end up with a complete farce, with the minority trying to outdo itself by coming up with the worst possible bills imaginable, that happen to include slivers of a majority's agenda. It's completely ass-backwards way to approach any decisionmaking process - because you are effectively giving multi-year issue veto power to any member of a legislature that's willing to embarass themselves by proposing garbage (that they don't actually want passed).

Or, worse yet, the majority will take the bait, and pass the bad bill anyway (because if they don't vote for it now, they won't get the chance to revisit the issue for years).


If it was that simple then no legislature anywhere would ever pass any bill already. Evidently there are countermeasures to these things.


It's a great analogy.

People seem to apply different rules of decorum interacting with "free" software that they wouldn't apply anywhere else.

Is it the internet aspect that makes it so? Or the ease of feedback to the creator?

I don't know, but it has become very obvious that what worked in the smaller "high trust" internet, doesn't work as well for a lot of people now.


> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Rich or poor, smart or dumb. We all are slaves to the mighty dollar.


Another option is

Western Australia: 0.2 if you get outside the capital city.

You'll see stars you didn't know existed and the distances are something else.

Northwest territories is beautiful though.


I stayed out past Margaret River in Western Oz and "OMG its full of stars" when I went to the outside toilet during the middle of the night and looked up.

I felt like I could get sucked up and lost in galaxies. You could see so many.


I live down in the south West and you really don't have to go far for some fantastic star photography.

Blackwood River forest is just one example.


Autralia is empty too, but lacks the vertical dimension. Seeing big mountains far away gives one the sense of being in a bigger "room".


Altitude is also an excellent force multiplier for visualizing stars. I can still see in my mind's eye the sky at night at 17,000 feet while trekking in Nepal in 1982: it looked like glitter-studded fabric, the stars almost contiguous.


Australia is state by state based too, some states have more reasonable rules of "present it on request"

Others like nsw are carry always


AFAICT here in WA it’s “you should carry but it’s not an offence if you don’t and you can sort it out later a bit like the UK”.

But I’m not 100% sure so I’m making sure I’m carrying just in case.


That's exactly what it is in WA :)

Source: I live there

Have also driven there for 15+ years and never been asked for my license.



It sucks but it's not illegal? Private business has made the choice to not support a set of processors on their os.

Run Windows 10 ltsc or move to Unix or Linux if that's an issue


For example today in sw Australia in late winter/spring it's a uv index of 5.

Summer time it sits at 13+ at noon on a clear day.

https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/?perio...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: