Of course if you route everything through the public internet layer, you are not doing anything good to your business security measures. That shouln't be a considered option, not even the last one in the list.
You can use a Direct Connect [1] option if you want a dedicated connection between your data center and AWS. Its more secure, but more hard-to-maintain and a bit more costly than VPN option.
Sure. Finney+Sassaman is a not-that-fringe theory. Le Roux might not have been alone but seem far-fetched to have coupled with any of the others on this list, specifically.
I always wonder my internet footprint will last until earth is no more than a lava planet or the bitrot... Intrigues me that somewhere, there will be a server holding your contributions to projects.
Space is undeniably fascinating, and it's completely natural to be captivated by the search for extraterrestrial life. However, the key point I want to emphasize is this:
Our existence proves that life is possible.
While discovering life elsewhere would indeed be extraordinary, it is ultimately within the realm of possibility. What would be truly remarkable is making such a discovery within our lifetimes—that would be the real stroke of luck, rather than the mere fact that life exists.
If life independently started in two places in our solar system in fairly different places, then it would be reasonable to think that it is fairly common and we would expect it in most solar systems. If life only exists on Earth in our solar system, then it's more reasonable to think life is fairly rare.
Yes, and if that occurs during our lifetimes, that's the jackpot.
I would guess that now it's quite unlikely, we might be an ant colony far, far away from others. Finding specific biota or small organisms seems like our most effective approach.
That correlation between connections and being good/bad it's utterly useless.
Would you take more into consideration a person who has more connections than other even tho they have the same resume?
Saying this cause connections can be fakely increased so it's a dumb metric that shows pretty much nothing.
Would think it's more useful seeing how that person expresses themselves or which posts shares rather than how many people has accepted into their "network".
Fortunately quite many, maybe cause my sector is highly demanded, but having 1k,2k or whatever number of connections is not a metric for a lookable candidate. Years of experience, your github projects, open-source contribs are valuable metrics IMHO.
Maybe recruiters after all also look a the connection number, could be, but its like saying a photographer is better than other cause he just simply posts more pictures.
I think you're reading in too much to the above comment... from what I can tell they're just trying to say "it's a dumb metric because recruiters are dumb"
Maybe I am overlapping my personal experience with others, but since I have a small number of connections, my job requests from recruiters in LI are normally optimal, quite elaborate and high-quality.
> That correlation between connections and being good/bad it's utterly useless. Would you take more into consideration a person who has more connections than other even tho they have the same resume?
Would I? No, but I also have never once looked at someone's LinkedIn when in the hiring process. I used to carefully curate who I connected with so that when looking at my connections, you could see it was a list of respected people in their fields, but I had barely over 100. Several recruiters told me point blank that doesn't matter at all. So I stopped bothering to care about my LI profile and connections, and suddenly had a LOT more activity with recruiters when I added more connections. Seemed quantity is truly valued over quality there.
> Saying this cause connections can be fakely increased so it's a dumb metric that shows pretty much nothing.
Yes, that was my point.
> Would think it's more useful seeing how that person expresses themselves or which posts shares rather than how many people has accepted into their "network".
You would think so, yes, but it's not how things work in the end.
>You would think so, yes, but it's not how things work in the end.
Maybe a high number of connections causes a better first-impression, but if the candidate does not know how to write or articulate a word makes things much harder. Overall, seeing how a person expresses their ideas in their natural language gives you a better impression of how a person thinks/operates.
Which in the end matters, cause you are dealing with persons, not statistics.
For first instance recruiters, having a large number of people in your LI can get you into the first recruitment stage, but you won't pass if you don't know how to communicate, express and confront ideas, that's how it works.
Isn’t that problem easily solved by adding to your open source project’s license: “FAANG companies (like Google, etc.) cannot use or make profit from this project” ?
There isn't a well known / widely accepted license with such clauses (afaik, happy to be corrected). Noone other than individual tinkerers will ever touch anything with a custom license or any license ambiguity for that matter.
Meta's LlaMa for example is "OSS" but under a custom license which effectively prohibits hyperscalers from using it
They can just open subsidiaries and use that to go around them. Also the big guys do donate a lot of money.
The real reason might be VCs. The companies going closed source have raised from VCs and they are pushed to more and more growth just changing licenses and taking control.
I mean that's basically what they're doing. The BUSL license these projects are using boil down to "you can't resell the project against us". But that's a non-starter for many folks and the companies using such a license are the devil.
Yes, there is far too much ambiguity in these licenses. Especially because you never know what will happen in the future. You could be found to be in competition after they launch a new product or new feature, years after not being in competition. At that point changing out their product could be too challenging, forcing you into arbitrarily expensive commercial license agreements.
Certainly one of the reasons why open source is popular in software is that it gives you options for maintenance prices. You can do it yourself or pay any number of consulting agencies to do it for you, or the creators of the software. When it becomes locked to one vendor suddenly the market economics change hugely. Now that vendor can crank the price up extremely high, basically until just before the point your willing to engage in a hugely expensive software refactor to move to a different product.
Open standards were supposed to help make it easier to move to new products, but in reality, it rarely is that clean. E.g. look at SQL, while it's easier maybe to move from one SQL database to another than from one completely custom database to another, it's still a massive amount of work due to details of each SQL server.
i found this useful for related general background information as well as some interesting conclusions, though you should probably decide for yourself if you think they are something you agree with.
