That way, I don't care if your branch contains 100 commits or 1 commit. I don't need to worry about commit messages like:
- fix 1
- fix 2
- dfljfdlkfdj
- does it work now?
Do whatever you want with your commits on your feature branch. Just make sure the title of your PR is clean and follows our formatting. Git history is always well formatted and linear.
Seconding this. Many sites are broken or inaccessible to me in qutebrowser lately due to Cloudflare captchas. I'd rather allow some bots in than lose the ability to use the site my preferred way.
There are dozens, if not far more, of captcha solver API's for extremely cheap. Captcha is very shallow bot "security" theater, they just deter the cheapest attempts.
latest greatest versions of captcha are more resilient to these types of services, but it's a cat and mouse game. I would recommend that you, as a sysadmin, learn at least the most basic things about this stuff.
> I would recommend that you, as a sysadmin, learn at least the most basic things about this stuff.
This sort of language is inappropriate and unnecessarily combative.
In any event, no filter screen is perfect. Getting rid of 80% of bot traffic is a good thing, even if you can't rid yourself of 100% of it. You can't let perfect be the enemy of "pretty good."
People use CAPTCHAs because they work--even if imperfectly. Of course, you have to stay on top of the latest implementations.
The GP comment was appealing to their own authority in a condescending way, I feel the tone was matched, but thanks for the feedback.
What you’re saying is true, although you can do simple blocks on user agent + geo ip alone and accomplish blocking a majority of bots anyway without captcha - but I’ll digress - that is not the topic of discussion. I’m not at all arguing that CAPTCHA doesn’t stop bot traffic - in fact my first comment says the opposite. Most bot traffic is extremely “dumb.” A mistake people make, which the gp comment seemed to, is that it stops bots dead.
I think it depends on how determined the actor is. I see all the range from your simple scripts to full on mimicking real user behavior that I can only really spot from the honeypots they hit.
You'd probably catch most the low hanging fruit for sure, but you would cause friction for real users.
I say this as someone who has enabled captcha on some of our more critical endpoints, there's definitely a place for it.
My website's contact form has a reCAPTCHA and it still gets spam sent through it (though vastly less). They pass the reCAPTCHA somehow. My contact form literally only emails me and they still do it.
Memorizing CLI commands and typing/editing them over and over can be very time consuming.
Use k9s for example. Let's say you want to determine where the value of an environment variable is coming from.
1. 'kubectl get deploy -n example' (find the name of the deployment in question)
2. 'kubectl describe deploy example-app -n example' (determine where the value for the env var is coming from)
3. 'kubectl get cm example-app-config -n example -o yaml' (check the value of the referenced key in the config map)
This is a very basic example but you can see where it lead to slow debugging that is made even slower by its propensity to typos and the need to look up command syntax. Once you get comfy in a well designed TUI, you can fly through this process in 10 seconds.
> If you do not enable Full Access, developers are not permitted to collect and transmit the data you type. Any unauthorized collection or transmission of this data without your permission would be a violation of their developer agreement. Furthermore, there are also technical limitations in effect to prevent unauthorized access.
Single point of failure means exactly opposite of what you think it means. If my work depends on 5 services to be up, each service would be a single point of failure, and correlation of failure is good for probability that I can do my work.
"If one thing I need is going to be down, everything might as well be down."
If I have a product with 5 dependencies and one of them is down, there's things I can do to partially mitigate. A circuit breaker would allow my thing to at least stay up and responsive. Maybe I could get a status message up and turn off a feature flag to disable what calls that dependency.
On the other hand, if all my dependencies are down AND the management layer is down AND the AWS portal is not functioning correctly, I'm pretty much SOL.
Massive centralization is never, ever a good thing for anyone other than the ones who are doing the centralizing.
So if you can just run without one service, what's stopping you to remove the dependency altogether. Why would you only want to remove the dependency when service is down.
So e.g. to get real my application depends on AWS's EC2, RDS, EKS, S3 Cloudflare's DNS, and Redis' instance. If any of those stop working it will go down. If everyone is within SLA, they might as well go down together than separately.
This is a really interesting point, because I could see a situation where your application requires integration with say 10 services. If they all run on AWS, they either all go down or all run together. If they're all self-hosted, there's a good chance that at any time one of the ten is down, and so your service can't run.
<if>
<equals arg1="${foo}" arg2="bar" />
<then>
<echo message="The value of property foo is 'bar'" />
</then>
<elseif>
<equals arg1="${foo}" arg2="foo" />
<then>
<echo message="The value of property foo is 'foo'" />
</then>
</elseif>
<else>
<echo message="The value of property foo is not 'foo' or 'bar'" />
</else>
That looks so terrible, but they could have been so easily transformed into an S-expression language similar to Lisp:
(if (equals foo "bar")
(then (echo "The value of property foo is 'bar'"))
(elseif (equals foo "foo")
(then (echo "The value of property foo is 'bar'")))
(else (echo "The value of property foo is not 'foo' or 'bar'")))
That’s not a Lisp-like language I particularly like, but it’s not flat-out insane like Ant appears to be.
Advocates for the inappropriate use of XML (basically, anywhere it was used as anything other than a markup language) have lot to answer for.
Look at the first sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second paragraph. Two grammar errors which are a dead giveaway it's fraudulent.
> Thank you for your assistance and understanding during your recent support
call, regarding a ficticious request aimed at accessing your Google
account.
Comma doesn't belong there and "fictitious" is misspelled.
> To follow all guidelines of the internal review properly. Please keep a
secure note with the temporary password which your support representative
has provided to you.
Out of place period. Should be a comma.
Legit, canned emails like this (especially from [email protected]) would be proofread much better than this. It's fake.
The obesity trend has happened almost in lockstep with the proliferation of highly processed foods. Butter and animal fats being replaced with low quality, hydrogenated vegetable oils. Cane sugar being replaced with high fructose corn syrup and other highly processed sweeteners. Sodas and sugary juices replacing water. Food like substances with little to no nutritional value designed solely for taste and texture.
These things are calorically dense while containing nothing the body needs to thrive (though the calories will allow it to survive). They are easy to eat in large amounts and leave you feeling hungry. And unfortunately, these are the most affordable and readily available foods in the United States.
I don't think this is a conspiracy. It's just capitalism. These low quality ingredients are cheap and extremely shelf stable. In addition, the government subsidizes the production of this garbage.
So to say obesity has persisted through everything we've tried is a bit backwards. It would be more accurate to say "a percentage of the population has managed to avoid obesity despite all of the things we've tried."
- Make healthier food options more affordable and readily available
- Better nutrition education
- And if you really want to get the government involved, ban the use of some additives, oils, sweeteners, and dyes that allow the creation of many of these highly processed foods
I agree with every word of your analysis and I agree that we've tried basically nothing. But this is why I talked about political capital—every one of your suggestions has been available for the last twenty years and nothing has come of it and the problem continues to get worse. When you say something like, "healthy food should be more affordable and readily available" you'll get a lot of nods of agreement but when it comes time to turn that idea into actual policy everyone gets cold feet. Proposals like price caps for whole foods, subsidies for meals that meet some threshold of healthy, sin taxes for unhealthy foods, outright bans of certain ingredients the votes dry right up.
But people want Ozempic, they will actively seek it out, and in numbers that can actually make a dent in the problem. In a way that people don't seek out healthy alternatives or exercise. Because people don't want to be healthy, they want to be skinny. You can't control people, you can only respond to them and, ya know, whatever works man.
> healthy food should be more affordable and readily available
I think there's more than one way to achieve that. It doesn't have to be bans or subsidies. A lot of it has to do with education and competition. Unfortunately, they are kind of a circular dependency.
- There's so much cheap, highly processed food out there. The companies pay for prime real estate on the shelves and expensive marketing. It is chemically engineered to exploit your pleasure senses when you eat it. That is a hard beast to fight without proper education. And not just the food pyramid, but in depth explanations on why you should avoid it and what to eat instead. There are large groups of the population that have no idea that pop tart or cereal are not a healthy breakfast option.
- If there were more companies creating and promoting healthy, less-processed food options, the price would naturally comedown due to competition. But without the education, these products just do not sell as well. If I gave you some natural peanut butter or almond butter (just almonds or peanuts - 1 ingredient) and I gave you a jar of a more common peanut butter like JIF (sugar + hydrogenated oil for better consistency) and you had no other information at all, you're choosing JIF 10 out of 10 times. It's cheaper, it taste better, and you don't have to stir it. These megacorps prey on that lack of knowledge.
More education -> make better choices when buying -> more companies selling those choices -> cheaper prices on those choices.
Of the measures you suggested, the one I've seen has worked was taxing soda and a direct correlation on less consumption.
The thing with healthy food is not that they are expensive, because they aren't, raw veggies, whole grains, raw chicken, raw pork are not that expensive, especially if you buy in bulk. The problem is that it takes time to cook them, which people may not have, and in general (at least the USA), I feel like people suck at cooking, and don't really have a good food culture of enjoying cooking, like italians do for example.
I believe something similar happened to cigarettes, they are super taxed as well as all the health campaigning around them.
Funnily enough, GLP1 might fix this food production issue as well.
Since urges for junk food and stuff are lowered as well, it would be interesting to map how GLP1 spreads through the population vs junk food consumption.
Matt Levine in his column actually addressed that GLP1 could cause the junk food/alcohol/other addictive stuff industries to lose a lot of money due to less consumption.
It's possible that junk food becomes a niche thing given enough time and GLP1.
reply