We must have a very different view of the world because in my neck of the woods companies are desperate for senior talent. And it's become even harder to find seniors now that everyone has access to a machine that can create the appearance of experience.
I mean certbot handles the just issue me a cert via DNS-01 and I'll do the rest flow just fine. Massive overkill of a program for just that use-case but it's been humming along for me for years at this point. What's the selling point for uACME?
Do you see yourself taking over httpcore as well as it's likely to have the same maintainership problem? It would certainly instill more confidence that this is a serious fork.
This certainly wouldn't be the first time an author of a popular library got a little too distracted on the sequel to their library that the current users are left to languish a bit.
Well, the reason for all the fragmentation is because the Python stdlib doesn't have the core building blocks for an async http or http2 client in the way requests could build on urllib.
The h11, h2, httpcore stack is probably the closest thing to what the Python stdlib should look like to end the fragmentation but it would be a huge undertaking for the core devs.
I think Flock is just a symptom of the underlying tech becoming so cheap that "just blanket the city in cameras" starts to sound like a viable solution when police rely so heavily on camera footage.
I don't think it's a good thing but it seems the limiting factor has been technological feasibility instead of any kind of principle against it.
I don't think Sotomayor's dissent is particularly convincing because you need a new law that hasn't been yet been invalidated for each instance of retaliation against journalists or general 1A violations. And plugging this loophole with QI would put police in a weird situation where they're having to best guess based on some legal test if a law is constitutional or else open themselves to a lawsuit. I would be happy if this loophole could be plugged cleanly but I think the harm is theoretical enough that the 5th circuit's ruling is acceptable. I would rather a streamlined system to strike these laws down without needing to have them be enforced first rather than messing with QI. Then the ACLU and the likes can file a bunch of lawsuits making the QI issue moot as they'll already be declared unconstitutional before they're ever used.
I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your
ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost.
Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.
I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.
I think your expected outcome is actually the desired one, to kill shrinkflation in favor of actual price increases. When the measures are all the same you can compare apples to apples across different businesses.
They don't get unsupervised internet access, there's always a supervising adult in between the child and the internet. For the child's devices it's the parent who has access to parental control software which will restrict access no matter where the device is, at the school it's the school, at the library it's the library, and for the friend's device it's that friend's parents. The answer for what pages do you block is that you use a service who does the work of categorizing pages for you. Every parental control software worth their salt will have this. It's basically the entire value proposition of paid filter software.
No matter the enforcement mechanism there is no way to defeat the "Shawn's parents are cool" problem because Shawn's parents will just give him their IDs to verify. And I know this because I'm for sure going to be that parent.
They added an optional date of birth field to a user directory. Are you mad at LDAP for contributing to the surveillance state?
Folks have absolutely lost the plot on this one. These laws are stupid, this implementation is fine. Be mad at your legislators, being mad at some swedish guy won't help you any.
Looks like you'll be able to pause them indefinitely with the new update so we'll see if this prediction comes true. Most computers will spend their entire life never once exposed to the public internet, the firewall does still work even if a cafe is your threat vector, and browsers and AV definitions are still automatically updated so I'm siding with the doubters on this one.
Why? Inheritance taxes are kinda stupid anyway, you already taxed it when it went to the parents, taxing again when moving those assets to next of kin is double dipping.
I can understand step up being considered unfair but the alternative is someone inheriting their family's stuff and getting slapped with a potentially huge tax bill they don't have the cash to afford.
The value of SOC2 is that it does take some experience to be able to plausibly fake the evidence which weeds out people that truly have no idea what they're doing. It also provides a blueprint of the stuff you should be doing if you actually care.
I suppose inability for you to sell and inability for customers to buy are technically different but the end result ends up being the same. If you need to access that market then they have leverage over you to force compliance with their laws.
And then there's the theory that the man is also the biblical antichrist which I think fits the prophecy reasonably well. Revelations has some pretty specific details that match up which I find quite entertaining.
She does if you want to keep doing business there. That's the stick that's available. Either you follow their laws despite not being in their jurisdiction or you can't sell to customers in Libya.
I don't like it same as you because it makes doing business on the internet complicated but it's how it works in practice.