Systems running core government functions should be set up to be able to efficiently execute their functions at scale, so I'd say it should only restrict extreme load, ie DoS attacks
Seems strange not to just... say nothing and merely remove any mentions of an enterprise offering from the website.
All this blog post can do is make people nervous and lead to customers moving elsewhere. Revenue will drop, and further compound their desire to not invest in the platform. What's the benefit/upside in publishing such an article?
All unlimited liability insurance companies (e.g. motor insurers in the UK) have reinsurance to take the hit on claims over a certain level - e.g. 100k, 1m etc.
For extreme black swan risks, this is how you prevent the insurance company just going bankrupt.
Reinsurers themselves then also have their own reinsurance, and so on. The interesting thing is that you then have to keep track of the chain of reinsurers to make sure they don't turn out to be insuring themselves in a big loop. A "retrocession spiral" could take out many of the companies involved at the same time, e.g. the LMX spiral.
Changing/layering architecture adds risk. If you've got a standard way of working you can easily throw in on day one whose fundamentals then don't need to be changed for years, that's way lower risk, easier, faster
It is common for founding engineers to start with a preexisting way of working that they import from their previous more-scaled company, and that approach is refined and compounded over time
It does mean starting with more than is necessary at the start, but that doesn't mean it has to be particularly complex. It means you start with heaps of already-solved problems that you simply never have to deal with, allowing focus on the product goals and deep technical investments that need to be specific to the new company
ChatGPT can easily do Monte Carlo simulation in its "thinking" step, and has done many times for me. e.g. I asked it to compare savings interest between regular banks and median returns from premium bonds. It's not difficult at all for it to do, you can see the code it's generated to do it + the output, easy to inspect
It will work - the magnetic interaction happens through the plastic, just will be very slightly weaker than one with additional magnets due to the tiny gap. The video shows it mounted on a MagSafe charger
No, you wouldn't. You'd just put the number in without the "n". In JSON, an integer is an integer - there's no limit to its size and no need to specify whether the integer is big or small.
The "n" notation is just to ensure compatibility within JS - has nothing to do with representing the number in JSON.
You're getting downvotes because what you've said is incorrect. This wouldn't be changing/violating/breaking the JSON format - it already allows for arbitrary precision.
However changing the behaviour of `JSON.parse` would indeed be a breaking change. That's an issue with the JS spec and web compatibility - not with JSON. The solution there is simple - either make a new function with new rules or add the ability to pass in options to `JSON.parse`.