Right. Unfortunately their right to request increases was removed. The exact wording: “Based on your service usage history you are not eligible for quota increase at this time” and then dead ends trying to reach someone.
They had billing accounts set up for all their projects. They were happy to hand over money but had no ability to.
Anecdotally, I know a paying GCP customer that recently got quota blocked on the number of global static IPs they are allowed to create. We could not figure out how to contact someone to increase it, and nobody knew why the quota was set so low (4). We just kept running into automated systems that gave circular information on how to request an increase. We kept getting links to sign up for a free tier account.
I feel like you inadvertently confirmed the authors point. In your “complicated” example, in order to visually show the baseline after rebase you removed the earlier C3, C5, C7 and C9 commits. But the authors point is that merge commits just need better tooling that can make it clearer what the baseline is!
Industrial IoT company | Canada | $60/day ($65 on weekends) for simply being on call, plus any alarm/issue after-hours I get paid my hourly-salary-equivalent with a minimum of 3hrs no matter what the issue is | on-call 26 weeks of each year.
I showed an interviewer a piece of something I built in a traditional page-per-view design, with some xmlhttprequest where appropriate, and a sprinkling of Vue where it added usability to some of the modal dialogs. Their only response was "why didn't you build it in React?".
I stopped interviewing for front-end work since then. The landscape changes frustratingly too often.
Now that Okta bought Auth0 what's the developer experience like I wonder? I imagine the infrastructure of the two products are still completely isolated. But is it still a separate product you can use for identity management or are new customers forced to use Okta?
Strange the cheat-sheet does not list setting the environment variable LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS=true as a mitigation, which supposedly works for log4j versions >=2.10.