Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | zaphoyd's commentslogin

How are you managing multiplayer and permissions? I see in the docs that you can add multiple users and that queries are filtered by the requesting user such that the user only sees what they have access to. The docs aren't particularly clear on how this is being accomplished.

Does each user do their own auth and the ingest runs for each user using stored user creds, perhaps deduplicating the data in the index, but storing permissions metadata for query time filtering?

Or is there a single "team" level integration credential that indexes everything in the workspace and separately builds a permissions model based on the ACLs from the source system API?


So it depends on the app - e.g., Google has domain-wide delegation where the workspace admin can provide service account creds that allow us to impersonate all users in the workspace and index all their files/email. During indexing, we determine the users/groups who have permissions file and persist that in the db. (It's not perfect, because Google Drive permission model is a bit complex, but I'm working on it.) This model is much simpler than doing per-user OAuth.

In general, the goal is to use an org-wide installation method wherever possible, and record the identify of the user we are impersonating when ingesting data in the ACL. There are some gaps in the permission-gathering step in some of the connectors, I'm still working on fixing those.


We recently moved to a more rural location that has needed more tools. It is shocking just how expensive and inconvenient it is to rent tools (and even vehicles to some extent) and just how much worse it is being even just a little bit rural.

The big box store in our town doesn't rent tools or vehicles. You have to drive 45-60 minutes to get to a store that does. This means the 4 hour rental prices (which for something like a wood chipper or chain saw might be sufficient for a lot of jobs) become nearly non-viable or highly stressful rushing through unfamiliar power equipment that really shouldn't be rushed.

A full day tool rental is often 1/3 to 1/2 of the price of a new mass market version of the tool. A week rental is almost always more. The tools are rarely in great shape. You are almost always way better off going to an estate sale or local marketplace and buying a used tool. If there is a job you end up doing 2-3 times or need for more than a week its even cost effective to just buy new ones. You save so much on labor doing things yourself that even with new tools you basically always come out ahead.

The best case is that you have a community run tool library that lets you check stuff out cheaply for a week and can have a relationship with the folks that run it. Similarly, getting to know the neighbors and being able to swap/borrow stuff. For vehicles this is a little more dicey because of liability & insurance issues.

We've definitely struggled with the vehicle for long and sheet goods. We really don't need a pickup truck and it would honestly be a hazard on skinny mountain roads... but we do need to move lumber, sheet goods, appliance sized things just enough that it's a pain without one. We settled on a midsized SUV with passable towing power (as an aside, EV power and control makes towing a breeze as long as your round trip fits in one charge). Renting a trailer is still annoying, but at least can be done close by. For larger orders delivery can sometimes be cost effective (vs renting a vehicle or buying and maintaining a truck) especially because places often subsidize delivery to win business.


>A full day tool rental is often 1/3 to 1/2 of the price of a new mass market version of the tool

For sure. I had to dig some post holes in limestone that was very hard. Rental was going to be $200 for a tool that would do it in a day.

Instead I went to harbor freight and bought a tool closer to $100 even though it took me a bit longer, and I get to keep the tool which is still working to this day.

Heh, and labor costs in the Austin area are off the hook. I did a project for around $5000 that a neighbor had a similar but smaller in scope project quoted for $21,000.


Based on the photo posted by the Blue Origin CEO the tanks are definitely getting stretched (also looks like a slightly different fin, landing leg, and fairing config)


I've had mixed results with this method, especially for folks in category 5 because they grew up in a world where people casually talked about [actual] visualization and they've associated [not actually visualization] with the word (thinking it is a metaphor for something else). As someone who cannot visualize at all when faced with this question I feel like my answer wants to be.. "null" / "the premise of this question doesn't make sense" and not "5"

A variant that I've found helpful for teasing out this case: 1. Ask the test subject to visualize an Apple 2. Ask them for a few very specific details about the apple they are currently visualizing (what color is it? does it have a leaf or a bite out of it?, etc)

In many cases aphantastics will not object to the activity in step 1, but they won't be doing the same thing as the folks who are actually visualizing. They'll just do what they do when people talk about "visualizing".

When you get to step 2 someone who is actually visualizing can immediately answer the questions and don't think they are strange, they are just reporting what they are visualizing in front of them.

An aphantastic in step 2 is often confused. They aren't actually visualizing any specific apple so there isn't a reference to answer the questions. You'll get a response like.. well what kind of Apple is it? How should I know if it has a bite out of it? You first have to either provide more context or reword the question to something like: What is a color an Apple could be? or What color is your favorite Apple?


I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead!

Additionally, like a sibling comment notes, a home hobbyist has full control over at least half, often more, of their addresses and can easily choose addresses for their network that are as short or shorter and easier to remember and organize vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with much more strict subnet size rules, etc.

IPv6 is a dream for home hobbyists! The complaining from them about “unmemorable” addresses just makes no sense.


> I also find it really weird as the killer (only?) app for IPv6 is that home hobbyists can run servers with low overhead!

Well, the non-trivial percentage of large orgs that have literally run out of RFC 1918 space would disagree.

But yes, you're right. There's a weird Stockholm syndrome thing some people have with NAT.


Yes, companies run out of RFC 1918 addresses, but no, they will continue to use public ranges for their internal networks.


>vs a v4 network where you have no letters to work with

It'd be hard to have so many devices that even in 10.0.0.0/8, you run into a need to have letters as part of the network addresses.

My home network is larger than most and I while I use multiple subnets for fun, I could it all of it into a single /24.


It's not weird. Many ISPs have dynamic prefixes, and even with "just" 56 bits that prefix is long and not very memorable.

Thus ULA is a must on the inside, and DynDNS is still required for anything internet facing.


A more accurate way to describe this is that IPv4 prevents anyone who isn't a hobbyist or professional from running their own server.


NAT for airline flight numbers would fix this problem and improve security to boot!


I have complete aphantasia when awake, but I do have visuals when dreaming. I can tell when I cross some threshold of awake-ness because the visuals of the dream I am having disappear (the dream usually continues, without visuals for a bit longer until I am more awake). It is a weird experience.


College hack nights, geographical meetup groups, contributing to open source projects.


the reference says $1.18 billion just for "launch operation costs" that doesn't include the hardware. Farther down the source cites the hardware + operations as $2.2B/5 launches


std::shared_ptr is reference counted. No GC involved.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: