People with such strong beliefs can be unpleasant to work with as well. Not saying you are, but there are often considerations beyond the immediate needs of developers that dictate tool choice in a company, and I find it not great if people complain about such minor inconveniences all the time (it's ok to discuss to some degree, but not in an overzealous way). Same goes for tech stacks, frameworks etc., I avoid hiring people that express extremely strong views (e.g. "JS is utter garbage") as they tend to be difficult to work with since they drag the team down with endless tech stack discussions and make others feel bad/inferior.
"Every product on the Internet" - "US-only, sorry!" ... Guess it's actually not every product on the Internet, not even remotely. Is it even 1 % of all products on the Internet?
Sorry that this happened to you, if it's brand new or under guarantee I would just send it back. People always complain about Amazon but I buy most of my stuff there because they have always resolved such issues in my favor, even sending replacements or taking back hardware after the return period was expired.
There's nothing magical to type-checking Python. You can write this in any programming language. TypeScript is actually a pretty nice language for writing static analysis tools.
Yes. If you want runtime validation of data you’re taking in people recommended pydantic. If you’re looking for runtime validation within your own code I’ve seen people use beartype, though to be honest I don’t personally understand the value added from it
On one hand, I feel like I've been in a coma since covid because I've just been coasting along with Marshmallow and jsonschema, but on the other hand it's like a lot of the major advances have been in the past couple years. Apparently pydantic got a big version update in 2023? And now all these competing static type checkers?
These companies aren't public utilities, no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus, why would that be different for US companies offering donations over the Internet? The fact is that all platforms that facilitate cross-border money transfers between two parties without clear services or good being exchanged are used for all kinds of money laundering, and governments try to contain that for good reasons. In the end they probably don't care much about the revenue they make in these countries as it's probably negligible. Again, their good right to do so, I don't see any issue with this at all.
The article claims that funds were held after being donated. That certainly goes way beyond "not choosing to do business". The claims were refuted by BuyMeACoffee, which changes things.
But if I, as a donator, donate money to someone using your service, and you then don't give that money to its intended recipient, you've effectively defrauded me. Had you said in advance "I can't do that, because you're trying to give me money to $foo which I don't support", then that is your right as a business.
What's wrong with a US bank sending money to Ukraine? Sure, they might ask for an explanation, but I doubt they will reject. Example: You need to send money to a family member (immediate or extended), or want to donate directly to the national treasury (yes, you can do this), or another war-related non-profit. These are all legit. There is probably more risk in money transfers to Bulgaria or Romania, due to online scammers. Belarus is a wholly different matter. They are one step away from Russia-level sanctions, due to aiding Russia during the invasion of Ukraine.
The occupied parts of Ukraine are under sanctions and presumably banks are concerned they can't differentiate the precise destination in country. Safer to just blanket deny everything.
> What's wrong with [...] You need to send money to a family member (immediate or extended),
I tend to agree, but the same applies if one family member is in Belarus or Russia, and the other one is in the USA.
I.e. just because it's morally ok, it doesn't mean that it's without risk (if you lie about the purpose) and that the banks will facilitate it.
OTOH, before EO2022, I know that transfers between Russia and countries in Europe were sometimes still happening. Disappointintly (but it's not very surprising), sending small money to family would usually be impossible, but if you had to transfer substantial amounts of money, and you could prove that it was from e.g. sale of a home, that could still happen.
On one hand, that makes sense: the bigger the amount, the more it makes economic sense to allow extra time and effort to check that all the i are dotted and all the t ate crossed.
But OTOH, the people with lots of housing property are sometimes precisely using housing to launder the provenance, and they are also not necessarily the honest workers whose family end up split across borders.
Of course, people would complain about a bank not doing money exchanges with Ukraine or Belarus. Moreover, payment system providers, money transfer systems, and banks are to some extent public utilities, especially when there are no viable alternatives. They are essential for business.
> no one would complain about a US bank not doing money exchange business with entities in the Ukraine or Belarus
Frankly, it's none of my state's damn business who I exchange money with. Their beef with other states is their problem—why are they dragging us through their bullshit?
If they want to collect taxes on it, at least that has the veneer of doing their job properly, and I'm happy to pay it.
if someone, for example, exchanges funds with a foreign nation to evade sanctions while they illegally occupy another, it really is their state's business.
Only because the state asserts their existence with violence. We certainly have little-to-no say in how the states in which we live behave, but we're all subject to their whims.
Personally, I have little patience for the pretense that the geopolitical theatre we're all subjected to reflects the people who live in the states represented in such theatre. Baudrillard had it right all along.
Only because the state asserts their existence with violence.
I'm comfortable saying if a foreign nation rolls military vehicles across a border and starts shelling apartment buildings, those buildings' residents have every right to assert their existence with violence.
We certainly have little-to-no say in how the states in which we live behave, but we're all subject to their whims.
I can't say for certain how much my state listens to me specifically, but if they do, I'd tell them their whims should be such that other states can't do the roll-across-border-blow-up-apartments thing. (to anyone, not just me.) Those are good whims. Everyone should be subject to those whims.
> I'm comfortable saying if a foreign nation rolls military vehicles across a border and starts shelling apartment buildings, those buildings' residents have every right to assert their existence with violence.
Of course, I have nothing against sovereignty. I just think states greatly overestimate what they're owed for simply not mowing down their own citizens. If my state causes another state to invade me, of course I'll side with the invader—my own state has failed me.
Domain hoarding is really annoying. Recently I noticed superposition.de was available and wanted to register it for a side business, now a domain grabber got it and is reselling it for 27.000 USD... I can't fathom how this is a legal practice. I mean, I get that it is legal but the naming authorities could change their terms of service to disallow such trading. It's a small annoyance of course but I find it tiring how every little aspect that made the Internet great is getting monetized into oblivion.
Though both share the ability so securely execute multi-tenant workloads, but they make very different tradeoffs when it comes to compatibility vs performance. To compare:
Firecracker is great if you want to securely execute an OS image. It has the benefit of compatibility with many existing programs, but that comes at the cost of some overhead.
Hyperlight is great if you want to securely execute program runtimes. This requires bespoke guest bindings, but it has the benefit of having less overhead.
There’s a place for both approaches, and I see both happily co-exist.
From what I understand Hyperlight's boot process is more similar to a microcontroller than a PC (although it use your CPU architecture) - the VM directly boot into your code. Unlike Firecracker, Hyperlight VM doesn't have any hardware while Firecracker do have VirtIO devices, serial console and keyboard so that traditional operating systems can be adapted to Firecracker. Host-Guest communication is done with shared memory.
I've seen this so many times already, going from server-rendered web apps to client-side rendered web apps in React, then through multiple generations of state management and component management strategies in React, then back to server-side rendered stuff with Next.js, it is so tiring.
Probably needs to be taken with a large grain of salt and might be exaggerated but I recently heard a claim (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKdtyDnGM-o) that the FHA program basically prevents a large number of foreclosures from happening as the government effectively keeps paying for loans where borrowers are already in default, and without the program many homes would be on the market again suppressing prices. If my understanding is correct the home owners get the interest payments made by the government tacked onto their mortgage so once they would go into default they would be faced with a home that is not worth enough to pay off the mortgage due to previously inflated market prices and all the added interest payments. Not sure if we have a new subprime crisis in the making here, it seems unhealthy in any case. But then again, never believe stuff influencers tell you on Youtube, so I take it with a healthy dose of skepticism.
> without the program many homes would be on the market again suppressing prices.
At the same time, though, the people who lost those homes will be on the market looking for a different place to live, increasing demand.
This is not my field of expertise, but on the surface it appears to me that this kind of thing is a wash. A housing unit is made available, increasing supply, at the same time as a new demand is created for a housing unit, decreasing supply.
I guess. I mean my own services get fake reviews without my involvement. I have a B2B software business for which I know all customers personally and still there is a product page on G2 reviews (which I didn't create) full of fake reviews, and I haven't been able to take them down (though I haven't tried too hard to be honest). I don't know what's the deal with that, I guess it's just about warming up fake reviewer accounts by writing reviews for products where it's unlikely that they will get flagged. They are all glowing reviews too, which I guess makes sense as writing a bad review would surely prompt a response from the affected company.
