PCI still recommends 90 day password changes. Luckily they've softened their stance to allow zero-trust to be used instead. They're not really equivalent controls, but clearly laid out as 'OR' in 8.3.9 regardless.
I think it's only a requirement if passwords are the sole factor, correct? Any other factor or zero-trust or risk-based authentication exempts you from the rotation. It's been awhile since I've looked at anything PCI.
I think this could still be a very useful question for an interviewer. If I were hiring for a position working on a complex system, I would want to know what level of complexity a prospect was comfortable dealing with.
I worry that this change increases the attack surface of what was a very safe application for viewing untrusted files. Of course, I worried about that at the release of 'new' notepad too...
I actually recently delivered a project which uses almost this exact technique. Python lambdas that operate on SQLite files have the benefit of being much simpler and cheaper than most other scalable database solutions (like Aurora) for very light loads.
That said, accessing SQLite databases is surprisingly disk IO heavy. I haven't gone too deeply into measuring the effect, but it seems the core issue is that traditional RDBS wire protocols are better than SQLite's disk accesses wrapped over NFS (or whatever connection the lambda/EFS join is). Stuff especially starts to break down when you need any sort of concurrent access. The small overhead for locking/unlocking files can quickly become awful when multiplied by the EFS latency, so you really do need extremely fine sharding.
I personally replaced tailing logs with lnav (lnav.org, also in Debian repos). Coloration, decompression, filtering, etc. with no learning curve made it an easy transition for me after hearing about it on HN. It isn't nearly so featured as a log aggregator like splunk, but it was a total tail replacement for me.
Can you elaborate on why you don't think it's a tailing tool? lnav monitors the files it was pointed at and will load new data as it is appended or reload the file if it has been overwritten. Also, if you are scrolled all the way to the bottom of the view, it should automatically scroll the view to keep the latest messages in the view.
I have always interpreted bones/ghosts as using previous runs as an additional source of level-generation data, rather than a progression mechanic. In the game, it is realistic that other adventurers would have attempted what you are attempting (and died trying). The game could fill in this assumption by randomly generating ghosts and loot, but real-world data is more interesting and nuanced. For example, one of my favorite components of the nethack bones system is seeing the cause of death of the ghosts I run into. Again, 'cause of death' could be reproduced with some random generation, but it wouldn't be as good.
Anyway, I only play nethack on public servers or using the nethack hearse tool, so I don't 'progress' by using my own bones files. Maybe if you play purely locally, you can view your own bones files as a form of progression.
Mechanically speaking, bones can also only get you so far. You have to first get to them to take advantage (and you can't control if they'll actually show up or not), but... then you already got as far as the bones did, and are presumably roughly equally equipped. Usually only 1-2 items orthogonal to your current loadout are useful (e.g. you wished for good armor this game, but a good weapon in the bones game). Also, the bones failed, so on average you are probably better off than they were.
(That's assuming you don't do some degenerate play like get a bunch of loot, run back to level 2, and die purposefully. At that point you might as well savescum.)
In most games bones also represent a significant risk. The ghosts fight you, the items come cursed, etc.
I start my manual picks at 3000 to avoid conflicts with users created by people like you. (I'm not only making a joke, I really do. My siblings are people like you, too.)
Snowflake ID[1] is another system related to those in the article. It uses 64 bits only, and has good sharding support, so can be more useful in some contexts. However, it naturally has worse independent random-collision chances than a 128 bit system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_ID
