Honestly, BBC is writing a very clickbaity title. They have only been on NASDAQ one day. Vinfast is not going to topple Tesla or Ford or GM in the next few days.
Context: I'm a Vietnamese and worked on one of the Vinfast subproject at one point. I like how Vinfast is going in Vietnam, trying to spearhead EV adoption in our country. I honestly hope they grow to be bigger than Tesla. But the product is not there yet.
IMO it's not Jira's fault (although I hate Jira with a burning passion). It's the problem of management trying to force their opinionated certainty on a very uncertain process of software development.
One of my past team used another lightweight Jira alternative, and even though the software does it best to keep things light, agile, PMs read the burn up chart as religiously as the Bible, then make their strategic decision based on the most optimistic estimation of the chart.
Agile is great at its core, but business people ruined it. And we have craps like Agile Expert.
I agree with your opinion. The problem is that managers have the notion of software estimation as a "craft". It should not be considered a craft at all, and once you held estimation to the importance of being a "craft", it is going to be a massive burden. It should be just a numerical representation of your gut feeling and past team experience.
Software engineering always has to account for uncertainty. You may try to deal with it before starting the project (waterfall) or in the process (agile). Management seems to think that by pressuring the team they can just do away with uncertainty and make their strategic planning seems more concrete, and make questionable decisions like publishing untested code. It's a power struggle all the way from the top brass to us lowly devs, but management need to understand that this is always going to bite them in the ass on the long run.
I have absolutely no knowledge in mechanical engineering before and I am now really in a youtube-binge about wrench. Not sure it is a good thing that I can get captivated by absolute random topic or a bad thing because how technology just suck up our attention.
> everything is repeated every six months to two years
Same feeling looking at the new Vercel SQL library. Oh wow now you can write SQL right next to your client-facing code, such convenient. You have just rediscovered PHP.
To be fair, frontend frameworks solve a problem. Application can get too big that you cannot manage all the states imperatively. Declarative UI building really help to keep the UI separated from the logic. But then management get greedy and and try to shove all the features they can think of into one single big app. Like, if you went to a page and click a button, going to another page will let you know that you clicked that button and shows up some nice CTA so you won't forget. Frontend people scramble around trying to create new abstraction to keep their working surface manageable. Then you get workflows where to get the result of an API call you have to dispatch a thunk action so it would update in the global store (my example may be antiquated, I'm away from React & Redux for a little while), instead of just, you know, call it and `.then()` update the UI.
Maybe if you have an app that is twice bigger than a normal app, maybe, I don't know, split it into two apps instead? The problem of web development app right now, I think, is because people are being monolithic where it should be independently modular, and then try to cut up your backend service into pieces when a single monolith works fine.
Ah but that's not what I am referring to. If you take a look at Vercel Postgres page [^0], you will see that Vercel is marketing a new way of writing server side rendered code, where you can write SQL code right next to the HTML-ish code for the frontend. So I'm just merely making a (meant to be humorous) comparison with PHP.
> PHP can't run in the browser.
Well actually, WordPress did it [^1] [^2]. They compiled PHP to WASM, so you can run our favorite web framework in your own browser.
I see your point anyway. Systems evolve. Tooling has to follow suit. PHP cannot achieve some of the feat today mega stack can. The problem arises when we apply the latest bleeding edge technology meant for systems that have to serve millions into our little MVP that may have less than 1000 users in your first few years.
I dont think you are listening what he is saying. The vercel sql library is serverside javascript. This could be any language.
What the library reinvets is pattern that has been criticised, hated and laughed at not that long ago. Especially in this form of raw sql mixed in between html.
It was specifically the react/you-must-have-api crowd who bashed PHP bacause of this.
I guess in the end PHP was what people wanted all along.
The Vercel SQL library doesn't mix raw SQL and HTML. It can't, since that'd easily allow public db access on the frontend.
What people wanted was the speed of a server-rendered starting point and the flexibility and performance of client-side templating and interactivity. JS/React can deliver this, PHP cannot.
Wow i just said that it is server side javascript because you were claiming ... and that its mixing raw sql with html template like what was hated in PHP. Have you even looked at https://vercel.com/storage/postgres - its right there in their example.
You are either trolling me or you are not really sure how these things work?
Thats not true. You had one .php file (or more, if you use includes) where everything was located: the HTML, if necessary any JS via <script> and interspersed with <?php … ?> depending on what dynamic stuff you wanted to output.
And this is parsed to one output file that is sent back to the browser.
Is there any rationale behind the decision of publishing this exclusively as an extension? Why is it not possible to just provide a public webform. I want to try it out but it doesn't support Firefox yet.
Based on what I've been reading, it's probably so they can sell the extension to a malware or adware company, or receive proceeds of crimes from them in exchange for providing data of extension users.
IMHO, the key thing that we need to do is to teach our kids how to create "things" instead of just "consuming". This is important no matter which era you are in, but the average 15th century kid didn't have that many stuffs laying around for him to just consume. This problem is suddenly in our face now and we are scrambling around to try and keep our children away from the cacophony of information, but the better thing to do is to teach kids to see computers or phones as tools, and they are there for them to wield and command.
What you should actually do varies based on your kids' preferences, your experiences. You can teach them to code, to do graphic design, write stuffs. Hell, if my child feel inclined I will allow them to learn to create TikTok video, but they have to actually *create* a piece of original content, instead of regurgitating other people's ideas.
Tablets and smartphones are designed at every level to be devices for consuming (or being consumed by?) content. And if you do want to create things, they are terrible tools for that.
Even if it is a terrible tool for my purpose, I'd still want my kids to try (under my supervision) and find out the correct way to use it. Then they will be able to judge for themselves the pitfall of those tools.
But yeah, my kid will not have a smartphone/tablet until they are at least 12. It's going to be pen and paper first, then a potato computer (gotta be Linux, they can try installing Wine to play games I guess)
I have a favorite comparison between learning how to use technical devices and learning how to use woodworking tools. You have to start out with the hammer, the chisel, the handsaw for small things first. And then learn to use the lathe, the drill, the bandsaw. Jumping straight to the big tool give you the big risk of losing a few fingers.
I commend your caution, but if an adult with full faculties available to them has determined that smartphones and tablets have too many risks and downsides to be an effective tool, then what chance does a child have?
Also - why the pre-determined sequence of tech tools for your kid? I have found a much more valuable approach in general to tool selection is to first identify a problem or project, and then apply the appropriate tools. Learning tech for tech's sake to me indicates that we have become ensnared by our own tools and devices.
LumaFusion/LumaTouch is one counter-example, and I‘m certain there are others. At the surface, you may describe it as a „video editor“, but I totally agree that it‘s really about „Story Telling“. I use it on iPad, and I am mesmerised about how ideas click into place every time - there must be serious, long earned expertise at work at the makers of this app. „Designed for consuming“? LumaFusion is the most fun (for me as the creator and my tiny audience of family & friends) creator‘s tool on any device - be it programming on/for small or big iron, writing on Windows, photo editing… you name it.
Your statement may be true for anything knock-off or underpowered, though. Your sentiment just not generalises to premium.
iMovie has existed on it since the start, for all the professional accolades it earns the iPad. You're still not going to see Steve Jobs pitching it as a replacement for the Mac, though. The iPad's most holistic pitch was ebook consumption, everything else was Angry Birds, YouTube and the faint promise of Pornhub on a bigger screen.
I did my last leg of high school on an school-mandated iPad, and it's not hard to get what everyone here is talking about. Want to do CAD? Gotta get a different machine. Want to record music? iPads don't have the drivers for our DAC. Want to type an essay? Go rent a detachable keyboard from the library. So on and so forth until you never feel motivated to create anything superfluous again. It was an exceptionally poor replacement for a laptop, particularly when I wanted to make something or do creative work.
That's fantastic, if your jam is investing in premium hardware and story-telling in video format. Personally, I can't think of a bigger waste of everyone's time than videoing my own life.
Edit: I will take your point though, that Apple at least attempts to produce premium products with a purpose. However, judging by the number of iPads and iPhones I see being used as passive content consumption interfaces, I'm not sure the outcome is much different.
> IMHO, the key thing that we need to do is to teach our kids how to create "things" instead of just "consuming". This is important no matter which era you are in
You say it as if kids prefer reading books over building with LEGOs :)
I mean, that's a very specific example of looking at it. But let me try and rationalize it:
- Books are not purely consumption. Rather, working through a good book is a very good creative exercise, because you are "creating" critical thinking for yourself. You still have to filter the intake of book for your kids, but imo there are very few books that have no value at all, because producing a book is costly to just put out junks on a massive scale.
- On the contrary, we have to agree that nowadays there are things that give your kids unbounded consumption. Very little critical thinking can be had after 2 hours of viewing mindless Youtube video. If you restrict your kids to only good content that provoke thinking, it's alright, but there is just too much crap on Youtube that lulls them to be mindless.
So, our kids are "consuming" at record high rate and "producing" at record low rate.
My seven year old went from doing animations with Scratch to drawing flip books. Now when she consumes media m, it’s usually about getting better at animation.
Needless to say, everyone who knows me in person sees clips of all her animations. And for some reason, it seems like they avoid me…:)
It's the Internet's big class distinction: the "creators" (0.1% with decent audience, 1% with any audience, 10% commenters) and pure lurkers/consumers (the rest).
This is a misleading title. Not to attack the merit of the project (it's can still be used to host stuffs), this is not free domain, this is free subdomain.
The main difference is that I don't own the subdomain, and should the organization decide to forgo the domain, my subdomain is also gone. On the other hand, if I buy a domain, my name is attached to it in the registry to denote that I am the "rightful" owner of the domain, and it is going to be way harder for me to lose access to it (I read a post on HN sometimes ago that some governmental cybersec task force can just terminate access to your domain if they deem you are using it for malicious intent, but otherwise you can only deliberately lose the domain)
This is just like a github.io subdomain. IME the only true free domain service is Freenom.
Also there is a Code of Conduct associated with it that's much more restrictive than, "We'll comply with law enforcement requests if you are doing something illegal with the (sub)domain."
This should be less frequent and IMHO, under many circumstance, you are protected by consumer law (citation needed). You also have more freedom when picking the domain name (fuckmicrosoft.co is less than 2$ on GoDaddy, but good luck trying to get fuckmicrosoft.github.io).
Also one issue that I neglected to raise is this can be very unstable. If some scammer/malware use your service (I know that you have a review process, but you still won't know for sure), Google SafeBrowse may mark your whole domain as harmful. I don't know if you have a contingency for this, but you need one in place.
You misunderstood the definition of domain in my context. In terms of ownership, if I tell you I am owning a domain, I am owning something along the format of "${name}.${tld}". I can't say that I own the domain of "example.github.io", because, well, if somebody look up for example.github.io in the ICANN domain (provided it is not redacted), it's not going to be my name in there, it's going to be Github's.
In terms of "string that I can type in the Browser address bar to go to a website", I agree with your definition.
> In terms of "string that I can type in the Browser address bar to go to a website", I agree with your definition.
That isn't a domain either. An address in there is a URL, a partial or complete one (it also recognizes search terms, but that's different).
It's actually really simple.
> In the Domain Name System (DNS) hierarchy, a subdomain is a domain that is a part of another (main) domain.
Having a subdomain be a type of domain is really important for speaking concisely about web security. If I say "what's the domain of the cookie?" and the answer can't be "news.ycombinator.com", that's suboptimal. At the same time for security it is also important to know who the registrar is, but for that there is the term TLD.
You are still not looking at the definition of"domain name" in my context: the ownership context. I totally agree with you on the technical side, in most technical context a root-level domain or subdomain is largely the same thing.
In the ownership context the definition differs. Please if you want to challenge my notion of "subdomain" please only challenge this definition only. You don't own a subdomain as strongly as owning a root-level domain, because in the first case the only attestation is on the database of obl.ong/github.io/etc while in second case your ownership is attested by the ICANN registry, which is how things has been working for the past 20/30 years.
Or your can be me. For some convoluted reasons I had the contract email set to my company mail and the domain was paid for 10 years. I left the company in May and in September the registrar started to send reminders which were of course bounced.
Then around Christmas I realized something is wrong, tried to get the domain back but it was too late.
This was an unfortunate set of circumstances, all my fault, but "deliberate" is a bit too masochist :)
I would like to first sympathize with you. That is a crappy situation to be in.
I also agree, "deliberate" is a bit too strongly worded.
So in order to lose the domain, there is just a very few modes of failure that has a 3rd party factor. In most case, the domain-owning entity is accountable for losing the access.
IMHO serving those malware sample directly on a website is a bit unwise. The thing is, a true bad actor can still publish an encrypted .zip file of a malware under an innocent front and manipulate the users to decrypt the file, unknowingly execute the malware. When it comes to security, we should assume bad faith.
A better way of distributing malware sample for research maybe to serve them in a readonly FTP server. Your website only provide paths to the file, not the link itself. Google (probably?) won't be able to scan this FTP server.
It all boil down to trust. He gave it to somebody he trust, who also have their stake in PayPal. If you couldn't even trust the General Legal Counsel of your company, a secrets key might not be the thing you needed to worry about then.
Risk mitigation is always about mitigating- making something harder or more impossible than something else. Nothing is perfect but some things are better.
But to what end? What more can you do with a printed envelop? ROT13 or Vignère that piece of text? Then write it with the Dancing Men alphabet?
The point is, you can only mitigate so much before it become an exercise in futility. The general counsel, if anybody, is the person that can actually bankrupt your company and get some nice money for himself using some legal tomfoolery. I doubt that if that was his intention, trying to decode a piece of base64 for a private key of the database would be the course of action that he would take.
The author was in a (then) startup. He had a sensitive document. He asked the Legal Counsel to keep hold of it and shred it after 1 days. And then forgot about it and went on and built more measure to defend against hacker, which is the more important threat actor here.
Know your threat model and expend your/your company limited resource on the things that matter.
Context: I'm a Vietnamese and worked on one of the Vinfast subproject at one point. I like how Vinfast is going in Vietnam, trying to spearhead EV adoption in our country. I honestly hope they grow to be bigger than Tesla. But the product is not there yet.