If only it were that easy to snap your fingers and magically transform your code base from C to Rust. Spoiler alert: It’s not.

How utterly disingenuous. That’s not what the CISA recommendation says, at all.

As if the new notepad wasn’t already enough of a downgrade.

It actually took me multiple trues to get into Stardew. The whole “track down everyone” quest is intimidating for a lot of people.

Up to you if you think it’s worth keeping at it, for the possibility of getting hooked later.

This really reads to me like the perspective of a business major whose only concept of productivity is about what looks good on paper. He seems to think it’s a desirable goal for EVERY project to be completed with 0 latency. That’s absurd. If every single incoming requirement is a “top priority, this needs to go out as soon as possible” that’s a management failure. They either need to ACTUALLY prioritize requirements properly, or they need to bring in more people.

For the Chuck and Patty example, he describes Chuck finishing a task and sending it to Patty for review, and Patty not picking it up because she’s “busy.” Busy with what? If this task is the higher priority, why is she not switching to it as soon as it’s ready? Do either Chuck or Patty not know that this task is the current highest priority? Sounds like management failure. Is there not a system in place (whether automatic or not) for notifying people when high priority tasks are assigned? Also sounds like management failure. Is Patty just incapable of switching tasks within 30-60 minutes? She needs to work on her organization skills, or that management isn’t providing sufficient tooling for multitasking.

When a top-priority “this needs to go out ASAP” task is in play on my team, I’m either working on it, or I know it’s coming my way soon, and who it’s coming from, because my Project Lead has already coordinated that among all of us. Because that’s her job.

From the article…

Project A should take around 2 weeks

Project B should take around 2 weeks

That’s 4 weeks to complete them both

But only if they’re done in sequence!

If you try to do them at the same time, with the same team, don’t be surprised if it ends up taking 6 weeks!

Nonsense. If these are both top priorities, and the team has proper leadership, (and the 2 week estimate is actually accurate) 4 weeks is entirely achievable. If these are not top priorities, and the team has other work as well, then yeah, no shit it might be 6 weeks. You can’t just ignore the 2 weeks from Project C if it’s prioritized similarly to A and B. If A and B NEED to go out in 4 weeks, then prioritize them higher, and coordinate your team to make that happen.

A quality apology consists of 3 things:

• An explanation of what you did that was wrong, and why it was wrong
• An explanation of what you’re going to try and change about yourself, to avoid the same mistake
• An expression of remose. I.E. the word “sorry” or “apologize”.

Your proposed apology has all those elements, so you’re already ahead of most folks. But there are a few suggestions for improvement in this thread that I think are also good.

“if you felt so, I apologize”: I don’t read this as you apologizing for how the other person feels, since you clarified that earlier. But I think it’s fair that others might read it that way, so you’re better off eliminating the ambiguity. You’re apologizing for what you did, without considering that others might (validly) consider it inappropriate.

“I’ll try to control myself around you”: similar deal, it should be clear that this is about you, not them. And when it comes to swearing in a workplace, it’s pretty-darn common to consider it inappropriate and unprofessional, no matter who you’re around. Maybe part of your apology needs to focus on how the behavior is unprofessional, and you simply needed help recognizing that, as you’re (possibly?) new to the professional working world.

Did they, though? Do we know how Nevaeh Crain and Candace Fails voted? Would that somehow make it okay?

The fact thay people who have done nothing to support these policies can still be killed by them is PRECISELY the problem.

You’ve never met an average ASP.NET developer?

I suspect this is because of the looming end of Windows 10. There’s a large segment of Windows users, myself included, with Visual Studio being the only remaining tie to the Windows ecosystem. Extremely smart move by JetBrains, if true.

So, the scheme is basically to have you, the publisher, invest some money into marketing the game, to get potential players aware of it, then have them pay a one-time premium to actually play it, if they’re interested.

Given that sunaurus has explicitly declined to defederate from unpopular and highly-blocked instances, stating that disliking content is not a reason to invoke defederation, I’d have to say this is the least-censoring instance I’m aware of. At least at the admin level.

At the community level, communities can moderate and censor themselves however they like, but I certainly can’t think of any examples I’d call censor-heavy.

I decided to split the difference, by leaving in the gates, but fusing off the functionality. That way, if I was right about Itanium and what AMD would do, Intel could very quickly get back in the game with x86. As far as I’m concerned, that’s exactly what did happen.

I’m sure he got a massive bonus for this decision, when all the suits realized he was right and he’d saved their asses. /s

Welcome!

a good way to get yourself labeled by someone who thinks in memes.

What an effective way to put it.

Option 2 seems like the optimal idea, on paper, if Option 1 isn’t feasible, but Option 3 doesn’t really bother me, if there’s trouble with Option 2’s implementation. I don’t consider privacy at an IP-tracking level really that much of a concern. This is a social media platform, my privacy is my anonymity.

It sounds like maybe Lemmy itself coupd use some enhancement with regard to how and when it decides to proxy, and what it does when proxying fails. If we can get a better experience by swapping to Option 3, until such enhancements are maybe made in the future, that sounds fair to me.

The issue last year was with someone, or many someones, uploading CSAM (child sexual abuse material, I.E. child porn). Like, SPAMMING it out to a bunch of Lemmy servers, which then federated it out across the whole network, in REALLY high volume. Obviously, no one wants to see that, but the legal concern is liability. For some servers, depending on where they’re hosted, that means they can be held responsible for “hosting” the content, once it’s been federated to them.

I’ll wager “no” to your question. That sounds like something the Lemmy codebase itself would have to implement, not smething that’s just configurable.

As I understand it (and assuming you know what asymmetric keys are)…

It’s about using public/private key pairs and swapping them in wherever you would use a password. Except, passwords are things users can actually remember in their head, and are short enough to be typed in to a UI. Asymmetric keys are neither of these things, so trying to actually implement passkeys means solving this newly-created problem of “how the hell do users manage them” and the tech world seems to be collectively failing to realize that the benefit isn’t worth the cost. That last bit is subjective opinion, of course, but I’ve yet to see any end-users actually be enthusiastic about passkeys.

If that’s still flying over your head, there’s a direct real-world corollary that you’re probably already familiar with, but I haven’t seen mentioned yet: Chip-enabled Credit Cards. Chip cards still use symmetric cryptography, instead of asymmetric, but the “proper” implementation of passkeys, in my mind, would be basically chip cards. The card keeps your public/private key pair on it, with embedded circuitry that allows it to do encryption with the private key, without ever having to expose it. Of course, the problem would be the same as the problem with chip cards in the US, the one that quite nearly killed the existence of them: everyone that wants to support or use passkeys would then need to have a passkey reader, that you plug into when you want to login somewhere. We could probably make a lot of headway on this by just using USB, but that would make passkey cards more complicated, more expensive, and more prone to being damaged over time. Plus, that doesn’t really help people wanting to login to shit with their phones.

Automated certificate lifecycle management is going to be the norm for businesses moving forward.

This seems counter-intuitive to the goal of “improving internet security”. Automation is a double-edged sword. Convenient, sure, but also an attack vector, one where malicious activity is less likely to be noticed, because actual people aren’t involved in tbe process, anymore.

We’ve got ample evidence of this kinda thing with passwords: increasing complexity requirements and lifetime requirements improves security, only up to a point. Push it too far, and it actually ends up DECREASING security, because it encourages bad practices to get around the increased burden of implementation.

I mean, I don’t even particularly think it looks bad, not with the riser sections actually being enclosed, but how on earth do you get that to connect?

Please tell me those splitters are just cosmetic and don’t actually work with lifts clipped that far in…