That's not how I'd interpret it, it makes sense that if you restart the sandbox from inside the sandbox it doesn't get destroyed, but it doesn't seem to change anything else. If you shutdown the sandbox from outside it would still be destroyed.

It’s enough to install software that needs restarts, but not for use cases where you need the sandbox across host reboots.

His usage requirements is using it only once when he sets up his computer, which is probably a good thing for a preferences app. It works well for him, why shouldn't be able to say so? So we can keep this thread strictly about complaining?

You could copy paste your comment to everyone here, "have you considered that other people use it differently".

> It works well for him, why shouldn't be able to say so?

That's not all the commenter said. "The moaning and groaning about how bad it is just seems so.....pointless to me."

If System Settings is fine for the commenter, that's great for the commenter. (Although "I virtually never use it" isn't exactly a great response to "It's virtually unusable" or a great defense of System Settings.) However, the commenter is criticizing other people for complaining about it, and that's not justified.

He undermines his own point. He says he has no problem with System Preferences, and then essentially says he never uses it, explaining why he would have no problem with it.

I'm not using gcp anymore because it's not worth risk losing access to my personal gmail account just to play around with pet projects.

I might be paranoid, but I just don't feel comfortable when there's so much in play.

Totally agree with this mindset. My digital life is on the line because Google refuses to separate services.

Create a new Gmail account?

Google associates different accounts that are from the same owner when handling issues FYI. So if they think your account is doing something wrong on GCP, be wary of associated accounts.

Never once heard of that.

Did you read the comments? My takeaway is that it was bs.

There was one person strongly challenging the story and plenty of back and forth. It hardly seems a settled case one way or the other.

Separating concerns, isolating things that are not related, these are some basic tenets of good engineering. Yet we all keep rolling the ball of mud downhill and act shocked it keeps growing and swallowing everything.

That's the beauty of the services I named. Super easy to roll the code to any other similar PaaS provider. There is no vendor lockin.

It is postgres + http handlers.

Oh that's cool, didn't knew that amateur surgeons were a thing :)

You may also be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_surgeon

"The barber surgeon, one of the most common European medical practitioners of the Middle Ages, was generally charged with caring for soldiers during and after battle. In this era, surgery was seldom conducted by physicians, but instead by barbers, who, possessing razors and coordination indispensable to their trade, were called upon for numerous tasks ranging from cutting hair to amputating limbs."

They were arguably professionals.

How barberic.

That's how a fair amount of stores work, at least in France / Spain. Uniqlo and decathlon for example.

You do need to put the items in a box at the exit to pay (you can't just walk out of the store with the shopping cart), but no manual scanning.

Edit: should have refreshed the page before commenting, Decathlon and uniqlo are popular here

Could be, or it could be that those systems are so aggressively tuned that newcomers have no chance to not be labeled spam while established players are whitelisted.

(I truly don't know, but I don't think it's as simple as you're saying)

Email delivery is not purely a protection racket.

People use Gmail because they legitimately want to filter out the unsolicited spam, marketing, etc. To an anonymous attacker, there is no cost to send these emails. Middlemen like MailChimp and Sendgrid play the role of converting email from a free, publicly exploitable channel into a paid, KYC one.

Email fbfw is the de facto standard communication channel for almost everything, but by design a single computer can send an unlimited number of emails to other addresses. This maybe was a good enough design originally, but now the role of email has grown so much that, today, it should be a paid KYC channel.

What is the alternative to spam filtering? Everyone maintains their own allowlist of good senders?

> What is the alternative to spam filtering?

Make sending email cost the sender. No, I don't know how. The best ideas I've heard (1) make the sender store the message and (2) have no hope of being widely adopted.

I always thought that non-coding architects still had at least some background in coding. What does the path of a never-had-coded architect looks like?

Possibly effective doodling in the design space of systems? I personally hacked at untold number of experiments with different approaches, and was doodling like mad over at least a decade. I have bookshelves full of notebooks covered with object graphs, system sketches, etc. It's not just coding.

DBA or sysadmin, I would imagine. So more “never wrote application code” than “never wrote a single line of code for anything ever.”

I don't understand where the anger comes from, the article makes it clear it's talking about distributed systems theory.

Like someone else said, you can use at least once delivery and handle duplicate messages, but that's not quite the same as a distributed system guaranteeing that a message will be delivered exactly once.

Lack of hard work definitely isn't an hindrance for grow. Having the right family name, pleasant facial structure or just being very likeable and sociable are all possible replacements for hard work.

If you already have everything you want in life, I can't sell you on hard work.

If you aren't happy with what you have, and you aren't working hard to change it, you are guaranteed stuck. That's all.

Those things give you opportunities. You still have to take them.

Turbo boost does nothing if the engine is off.

I'm not sure I understand your comment, you seem to say that automating testing isn't better than manual testing, yet the e2e tests caught most issues?

Yeah could have been clearer, e2e from all testing suites i mean. My point is not so much that human testing it's better, which it is, but also it ends up being more time efficiënt the maintaining test suites. Which can het quite time consuming.

Also testing with a checklist by human is easy to outsource to cheap labor. Whereas testing engineers are pretty expensive