I see that Docker doesn't actually offer an AWS-style enterprise account that one can use to hand authorization to developers without requiring those developers to make individual accounts.
It feels pretty sassy of docker to give everyone 2 months to shove credentials everywhere when docker themselves haven't done the minimum to make enterprise accounts realistic. Instead, they're adopting the github model of "oh, just ask everyone to make personal accounts and then include their personal accounts in the org team". That has problems.
Firstly, it puts employers in the unpleasant position of attempting to compel employees to make legal agreements with third parties (docker, in this case). The correct way to do this is AWS-style, where the org itself makes /one/ agreement and then delegates that agreement via access keys. This is the minimum I expect from enterprise account systems, hard fail for docker.
Secondly, it's a clusterfuck to manage. You end up with an org filled with random-arse account names that you can't really audit, and you don't know who has access to what. If employees leave the org, it's hard to ensure that their access is revoked because the access takes place entirely outside the standard account domains.
Github has recently improved this a shade by adding ADFS authorization to org accounts, but that involves asking employees to tie their personal (and all github and docker accounts /are/ personal) account to their work ADFS account, which is a shitty half-solution.
All things considered, docker made this problem for themselves. They've spent /years/ working hard to get everyone to make docker accounts and push everything to docker hub instead of fostering an ecosystem of registries by different orgs for different purposes. All of a sudden it's now "too expensive" and they're dropping the hammer on everyone to sign up and push credentials everywhere with very little warning, whilst not doing their half of the work by making a proper delegated authority account system.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for their future as a stable platform on which to base a business.
c) injecting them with hilarious overdoses of drugs and crossing our fingers
then why would we pay for police?
If that's ok, we might as well go back to old west times and just have everyone carry revolvers, possibly calling the town apothecary with his bottle of ether if we think we need it. It'll be way cheaper than maintaining a standing police department.
The whole point is that police are supposed to be trained and equipped to handle disturbances without harming the person being detained. There are options for this, including that so rarely used tactic, defusal.
Like, we pay police overtime. Cordon the person off, give them space but don't let them leave, wait until they get hungry even if it takes 12 hours, and then bribe them with pizza to come quietly. Build rapport with them over the entire incident. How often do we see that strategy deployed before we fall back to injecting ketamine?
Almost every police encounter event ends without incident. There really seems to be an issue right now with selection bias of these events.
I agree there is always room to consider other ways of handling outlying incidents. Injecting drugs into people violates so many principles of freedom it seems hard to justify it.
The pizza idea could work in some cases but I think we also have to realize that some people being taken into custody are irrational either from mental illness, and/or drug use, could be armed and/or violent, and cordoning them off may work or it may not. And then a potentially armed, violent, and irrational person is a threat to innocent people. The police have many objectives and one of those is to take suspects into custody safely so they can have just administrated. However, the safety of the public might be of higher priority and if asked to make a choice between hurting a suspect that appears irrational and violent so as to not risk the liberties of the public or respecting their liberties but putting the liberties of the public at risk, they’ll choose to optimize for the former.
Policing will never be perfect and there is a reasonable amount of error we should tolerate. And there should be accountability. I do agree that it would appear, at least from the stories that tend to make the news, that diffusion could be employed more.
>I also don't think that appeals to "is that legal" are all that satisfying
I've always used the rule of thumb that if the best thing someone can say about their behavior or decisions is that they aren't illegal, that person is probably the arsehole in the situation.
Yep. The late 90's and early 2000's was littered with people trying to make "light" copies of MS Word. The problem is that journalists need the wordcount feature, and teachers need the wordart feature. Remove either, you lose a demographic.
That having been said, there are a lot of products out there that made their product intending it to be free, and then when they hit 1m users they started thinking "hmmm, if I could get a dollar out of every user, I could buy a house". They try to stuff a monetization model in sideways and damage their product in the process. Taking a moderately successful product that's crippled by attempting to shoehorn in monetization and redesigning it to have reasonable monetization from the beginning might be a better strategy.
That's exactly the point of this approach. Don't try to solve everybody's use cases like Word. Target one specific group and make the product faster and easier to use by removing all unused features.
Word is a special case and I don't think the model works there - not least because users need an industry standard for content interchange, and it's very hard to build a 100% compatible Word clone.
But there are a lot of opportunities elsewhere to make products that are faster, simpler, cheaper, and more useful than the current industry standards.
Word is not a special case, it's just people getting used to it and that's all. If tomorrow Microsoft goes belly up and their office suite will be dropped by everybody due to always discovered vulnerabilities Libre Office will pick-up quite nicely. I have yet to find a feature of Word that I can't find its equivalent in Libre.
But Libre is a massive product was well, with a tremendous number of work hours put into it over decades. We're talking about alternatives that are nimble and have fewer features.
That's sort of Google Docs/Sheets/Slides TBH (in addition to being hosted/shared). I'm not really a "power user" of any of these tools anymore. I use them a lot but I don't do anything fancy. That said, if Docs didn't have, say, a word count feature, that would be a major annoyance.
Local councils can create some value by allowing people to pay council taxes, fees and fines with the issued currency. Enough to peg it 1:1 with the USD? I'll be honest, I don't know how countries like panama manage that, so hell if I know how a council would do it.
Fundamentally, this is what underwrites the US dollar as well. If you don't pay your taxes you (eventually, provided you aren't connected enough to avoid it) get arrested. You can generate your wealth in corn or software or boat building, but you have to pay your taxes in US dollars. You can't barter your boats for corn and pay your taxes in corn. Thus, (almost) everyone in the US needs some US dollars to avoid being jailed. This is the foundation upon which the value of the US dollar is built.
Of course, making sure it doesn't blow up in the councils face in a few months/years time due to lax issuing controls is a different matter.
I suspect there may be a psychological effect giving these currencies value as well, considering they've only been rolled out in small towns. Imagine living in a 2000 population town like in the article where everyone is socially connected. If you refused local currency because you doubted its future value, your business could very quickly become a local pariah.
Taxation is necessary to maintain the value of currency when dealing with a country of millions of people, but somewhere on the sliding scale as the population numbers we deal with decrease social factors outweigh purely economic factors. One of the biggest impacts modern capitalism has on human society is its ability to strip away all social considerations from financial decisions. In the premodern world your shopkeeper was also your neighbor, and every transaction was filled with social considerations like your relative wealth, recent hardship, or length of acquaintance. In the modern world, everything has a fixed price regardless of whether the buyer is a foreign stranger or childhood friend. Only by stripping away messy individual social connections does trade among 7 billion people operate efficiently.
When I first set up my requirements.txt's, I usually set up a venv, install the things that I need and then run "pip freeze" to get a list of all deps including transitive deps, and put them all in the requirements.txts.
I do sometimes feel that people are making rube goldberg machines out of their package management in an attempt to avoid just writing down all their deps.
Leaving aside my visceral reaction to attaching mandatory trackers to people:
>The “BioButton” is wearable technology that monitors your vitals, including temperature and heart-rate, in real time. It can last for up to 90 days. It’s meant to be worn on the chest and connects to your mobile device.
Once again, technologists attempting to make covid solutions have forgotten that not everyone uses smartphones. On top of that, what're the odds that this doesn't work on any version of android older than oreo, or that don't have google play services installed?
Basically sqlite is public domain if your country recognizes that kind of thing. If it doesn't, then sqlite doesn't care and will never pursue you. However, if /you/ care, sqlite will sell you licence. This licence costs $6000, looks very official and shiny and whatnot, covers all your bases as if public domain did exist in your country, and sqlite uses the money to continue funding development.
I'd be inclined to do something very similar with an additional clause stating that if dedicating to the public domain doesn't free me from liability, then see $6000 licence. (I thought sqlite had this, but either they've removed it or I misremember).
I also prefer appimages as the "least worst" of the three.
However, a quick note: As someone who unofficially maintains a linux port of my companies software, I have considered packaging it as an appimage, but there's one problem with appimages that kills the concept.
Appimages are read-only[1]. I'd love to package my companies product that way, but we already have update-delivery infrastructure that works on windows and mac (and linux), and it assumes it can write to the "install folder". Changing the entire update infrastructure specifically for an OS we don't officially support is a non-starter.
From a developer perspective, I would love the ability to update an appimage's contents in place. However, as a user I'd also like the ability to set it read-only to block updates if I desire. Flatpak's mandatory updates are one of the key reasons I dislike it. Never the less, if the goal is to smooth the path for proprietary software to support linux without making half a dozen different packaging solutions, in place updates need to be supported.
[1] edit: according to comments below, they now have an update mechanism, but it's still a totally appimage-specific process, so my problem remains :/
I use ublock origin to selectively block the consent boxes. I've never yet seen a website which says "our backend has noticed you have not yet consented, you may not continue".
I see that Docker doesn't actually offer an AWS-style enterprise account that one can use to hand authorization to developers without requiring those developers to make individual accounts.
It feels pretty sassy of docker to give everyone 2 months to shove credentials everywhere when docker themselves haven't done the minimum to make enterprise accounts realistic. Instead, they're adopting the github model of "oh, just ask everyone to make personal accounts and then include their personal accounts in the org team". That has problems.
Firstly, it puts employers in the unpleasant position of attempting to compel employees to make legal agreements with third parties (docker, in this case). The correct way to do this is AWS-style, where the org itself makes /one/ agreement and then delegates that agreement via access keys. This is the minimum I expect from enterprise account systems, hard fail for docker.
Secondly, it's a clusterfuck to manage. You end up with an org filled with random-arse account names that you can't really audit, and you don't know who has access to what. If employees leave the org, it's hard to ensure that their access is revoked because the access takes place entirely outside the standard account domains.
Github has recently improved this a shade by adding ADFS authorization to org accounts, but that involves asking employees to tie their personal (and all github and docker accounts /are/ personal) account to their work ADFS account, which is a shitty half-solution.
All things considered, docker made this problem for themselves. They've spent /years/ working hard to get everyone to make docker accounts and push everything to docker hub instead of fostering an ecosystem of registries by different orgs for different purposes. All of a sudden it's now "too expensive" and they're dropping the hammer on everyone to sign up and push credentials everywhere with very little warning, whilst not doing their half of the work by making a proper delegated authority account system.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for their future as a stable platform on which to base a business.