maybe, but that is a by product of a real function (hedging). The reason prediction markets deal with news is so they can attract gamblers. Also compare marketing efforts of prediction markets and SEC control of real markets
I've never attempted to use IoT devices for development, but my recommendation is to make the copy quickly explain what problem you are solving. E.g. "Stop spending months building infrastructure to manage your IoT device systems, instead integrate in days"
Perhaps with a concrete example with and without your product.
Hey, thanks for the feedback. Great point! We're gonna add something like this to the landing page soon. And we're going to write a few blog posts showing quick integrations across different hardware and protocols as well.
> having a main branch allows a casual observer(management) to browse your project in the gui and see what is currently live.
I never found this very compelling. What is main in that world is not the source of truth, and it's rare to have a system atomically in one state or the other - but normally there are progressive rollouts. And if you ever need to rollback in production, I assume no one is changing where main is.
> I like the opportunity to force a second set of testing, and code review. Especially if the team is big enough that you can have different people doing code review for each branch.
To be explicit for code review, do you mean there is (1) main, (1) development, and then a bunch feature branches - and that there is review when merging into development and main? Having a two-tiered review process seems extremely difficult to do - versus just having more reviewers on the first merge - especially dealing with merge conflicts and needing to merge again into development.
> You can also have your CI/CD do longer more thorough testing while merging to main vs development.
I think it's fair to do more testing later. I think the equivalent I'm used to (which is pretty close, so not a huge difference), is only building releases from the commit that passed the bigger/slower tests.
But also, assuming there are multiple deployments coming from one repo, if you block merging into main, that means you'd be blocking on all tests passing - while release branches for a given product can select a subset of tests when deciding on release candidates.
> If it's a project with a single deployment, version tagging is kind of pointless, it's much easier to just use a branch to reflect what is live, and roll back to a merge commit if you have to. Then you can still merge directly to main in the event of a hotfix.
I think it's worth maintaining the flexibility of how many releases come from a repo. Needing to fork repos just because you want another deployable release in the future seems painful to me.
I never found this very compelling. What is main in that world is not the source of truth, and it's rare to have a system atomically in one state or the other - but normally there are progressive rollouts. And if you ever need to rollback in production, I assume no one is changing where main is.
In the scenarios I am thinking of, the only way to rollback production is to update the main branch and redeploy.
But still, it's just the niceness of having the default branch match production or the current release. Even if you're not going through the extra code review or testing, and all you did was automatically point main to the same commit as the latest release tag, it's still nice. Of course, you could have a production branch or whatever, set that as your default, and leave main for development, but the point is the same.
To be explicit for code review, do you mean there is (1) main, (1) development, and then a bunch feature branches - and that there is review when merging into development and main? Having a two-tiered review process seems extremely difficult to do - versus just having more reviewers on the first merge - especially dealing with merge conflicts and needing to merge again into development.
Yes, but merge conflicts are not an issue at all if you don't squash commits on merge, atleast not between development and main. The way we used to do it, was each part of the project had owners with one required to review all changes before merging to development, then any other senior developer could review the merge to main. Though, we would encourage the whole team to review every PR if they had time.
In practice, this was really just a chance to see all the changes going in on this next release.
I think it's worth maintaining the flexibility of how many releases come from a repo. Needing to fork repos just because you want another deployable release in the future seems painful to me.
When the development team is also the operations team it's easier to keep them together and just update the deployment to go to multiple places, which would effectively still be a single deployment.
If they're separate teams, then I would be inclined to give operations it's own repo where they can manage their specific things. With a pipeline that pulls down the artifacts from the development team.
Absolutely don't, and I've argued since day 1 that by refusing to try to contract for training before they just ripped it, each and every one of them should be saddled with so much legal liability as to not exist. The capitalist overlords however, will grasp at anything that promises them of being free of dealing with labor...so... Here we are.
I think the question of is a business allowed to have something free only for humans (presumably with advertising) does not have a clear best answer - politicians can decide.
News has a business model: do actual journalism. I don't see much reason to fund the people who are giving me the same story as everyone else who received the same press release, with no additional details: I might as well subscribe to the press releases.
It's not comparable. You will lose your AS and PA if your sourcing-LIR goes out of business or increases prices against you. It's ab big difference to become a LIR or just a downstream customer.
You shouldn't lose an ASN or PI block, they are registered to you at RIPE, only managed by the LIR and can be transferred to another LIR in exceptional or routine circumstances. I think you'll have to pay another fee though.
A PA block is just part of a LIR's block that they give you permission to use, so I doubt you could keep that if they went out of business, but maybe RIPE has a procedure for it.
I don't want to blame anyone for using this setup except RIPE for their fee schedule. For example, I don't have IPv6 because that would double my running costs just for RIPE.
Ok, for reference, I'm paying my LIR about 150 EU/year. That includes the ASN, IPv6 /44 block, and a BGP VPS. I have a legacy IPv4 /24 block that doesn't cost me anything. I do miss out on RPKI for it because of that.
Outside of that, I have another couple of VPSes I use for experimenting with routing and fail over that are closer to my location. The VPSes are connected to my home network and each other over Wireguard.
€75 per assignment / sponsored resource
€50 per ASN assignment
So in your case it's only €50 for the AS-object but your LIR needs to allocate their LIR base fee costs (which includes the IPv6 PA that they assigned to you), also infrastructure, the VM, support.
I really like the couple of LIRs that are very active in supporting one-person-multihoming setups, but IMHO RIPE should directly do that at a low entry fee. RIPE has also education/training offerings for LIRs and that would increase the knowhow and reach of RIPE. Most home lab enthusiasts will apply the gained knowledge in their job, at customers and bring new customers to RIPE.
You're not wrong about the sustainability, but we don't know if it's their only business. I'm not sure how many BGP / multihome hobbyists there are out there, but I'm guessing it's not a huge number. My guess is the LIR stuff is an add on for their colocation and hosting services.
When I first made the ARIN or RIPE LIR decision a few years back, ARIN required a $500 registration fee for an ASN. That was a few years of LIR fees right there. I felt it was worth the risk for the savings with a hobbyist setup.
They can and they do; that's called dollarization.
It's worth observing that dollars that are never supposed to return to the US don't have the same anti-counterfeiting pressure that dollars spent in the US do. I don't know how much of a market there is in counterfeiting USD for dollarized economies.
This sounds hard to believe. Adding anti-counterfeit messures to the bills that have them ($10s and up?) can't be that expensive compared to the value of the note, why would they make two different versions?
I think the nuance is that is doesn't produce what it's worth - it's that it's value to society is more than what people are willing to pay for it (and also more than what it costs to produce).
Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but these dynamics seem pretty strong.
reply