Buckshot @ Buckshot @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

69

Joined

2 yr. ago

I hate that the member prices don't show the unit rates. I prefer to buy in bulk where it works out cheaper for some things and it's impossible now without taking a calculator.

Yeah I've been dropping not very subtle hints. We're only a small company, about 25 people. We don't have any dedicated database admins at all.

It's on the list I think but we don't have the people to spare to get it done.

We use SQL Server at work and I really don't get why. It's so expensive. We're hosting it on AWS as well. I can't remember the numbers but it's several times more than a similarly specced postgres and we're only using Standard edition.

I don't think we're really using any features that would stop us moving over, it's really just inertia and in-house knowledge.

Maybe that's normal in US but it's way overpriced in UK. They want £75/mo and I'm paying £35 for 500Mb in a rural area and there's several different providers to choose from. My sister is even more remote than me and they're getting fibre this week.

I could also get unlimited 4G for about £20.

I don't know anyone who is using starlink

Yeah totally agree in the technical sense but if they want to spy on your banking they can go to your bank. If they want to spy on your instant messaging they can't.

The bill doesn't mention encryption at all, it only creates the ability to compel service providers to grant them access on request. Breaking the encryption is the only way they could do that. The law isn't telling them not encrypt traffic directly.

Up until the last decade, law enforcement could access pretty much any communications with that appropriate warrants. They could intercept mail, tap phones, get access to emails. E2E being so widespread is fairly new and I vaguely remember messaging platforms implementing it to avoid all the potential legal problems with law enforcement around the world and and international user base. I have no source for that though.

I can imagine it's a potential minefield that they don't want deal with so removing their own access solved that problem.

Don't get me wrong, I believe people should have access to private communications and I think all the rhetoric about protecting children is BS. It's just an easy way to quiet the dissenters then they expand those powers later on.

I see this argument every time this comes up but it's not true. The end to end encryption they are talking about is between users so the service provider doesn't have access to the data.

You sent a WhatsApp message and it's encrypted right through to the recipient's phone.

Your banking doesn't do that, it's encrypted between you and the bank.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you there's no feasible way to stop it and hasn't been for 30 years since the release of PGP, but it's not about encryption in general, it's specifically encrypted communication between individuals and bringing other stuff into it just weakens the argument against it.

It already is crowd funded

Years ago now I was asked to be on call for a week, 24/7 outside working hours. I was told it would be paid. Being naive I thought I'd be paid at my normal rate.

Turns out the on call rate was based on the likelihood of being called and this project was deemed to be low, after tax I got less than £10 extra for the whole week. It was something like 14 pence an hour.

They had a whole load of restrictions on my life as well, couldn't be more than an hour from the office, couldn't be drunk, had to answer the phone within a minute at all times and be able to get on my laptop within 5 minutes.

Refused to do it again after that first week and they ended up having to pay a contractor £400/week instead.

So a felon can't vote but could run for president?

"How many Transporter accidents have there been in the last tens years, Reg? Two... three? What about the millions of people who transport every day without a problem" - Geordi - TNG Realm of Fear S6E2