I agree with you, but the counterargument that'll be made against you is "you should be doing that on the endpoints".
That counterargument ignores the fact that you can be the owner of an endpoint but not be permitted, by manufacturer's policy, to control the software running inside. That's what you get for purchasing a proprietary device.
So, as the network operator and owner of the endpoints in the world of DoH (and pinned certificates), you end up being left with the decision to "vote with your wallet" and simply not purchase devices that don't afford you influence on name resolution (or whatever functionality we're talking about)
The counterargument goes on to say that the manufacturers of these sealed-box devices can functionally do this today anyway simply by implementing their proprietary name resolution (content delivery, etc) protocol.
My partner has a Google Chromecast. Please tell me how I can configure it to use a DoH server I want, rather than the one dictated by Google. How about the video intercom systems in my apartment building? How can I configure them to use servers I trust rather than an unknown?
> My partner has a Google Chromecast. Please tell me how I can configure it to use a DoH server I want, rather than the one dictated by Google. How about the video intercom systems in my apartment building? How can I configure them to use servers I trust rather than an unknown?
Devices you don't control are under no obligation to follow your network's DNS policy, or even use published protocols for name resolution at all.
Big reason why the writer's guild is currently on strike. Super naive view that people who make stuff shouldn't continue to be compensated if someone is getting value from that work. That's part of why programming can be so lucrative.
> I don't base my choice on what media to absorb on superficial criteria like the country of origin
Other countries, including the USA, advertise and hype their own content. Your preferences are deeply influenced by the country of origin, because advertising works.
> Other countries, including the USA, advertise and hype their own content. Your preferences are deeply influenced by the country of origin, because advertising works
This bill isn't blocking American advertising in Canada. It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
How can someone less experienced that you gauge your competency for a position that requires more experience than they have?
That’s before wondering why they’re asking a question to gauge my competency when they don’t even understand the nuance of the question themselves.
An interviewer working on google’s enterprise nosql db but not knowing about (at least on a surface level) the breadth of nosql dbs doesn’t seem crazy to you?
The tech interview circuit has really become a bunch of people asking questions that they couldn’t really answer themselves without a rubric in front of them (whether leetcode or system design).
To be crude, it’s a bunch of nerds hazing for jobs.
If my house had a pest problem, I would need to hire an expert in pest-control. I need to do that without being an expert myself. How should anyone be able to hire someone with more experience than themselves, in your view? I've sometimes had to 'hire my own boss'.
Maybe the criteria for the problem was less "did they check these boxes" and more "could they be a collaborative mentor willing to work with even the junior members on the team" in the context of designing a system.
> If my house had a pest problem, I would need to hire an expert in pest-control.
The result from the expert is that you as the layman can look around and see no pests (which anyone with their naked eye can do)… you’re not judging them on their knowledge of pesticides.
> Maybe the criteria for the problem was less "did they check these boxes" and more "could they be a collaborative mentor willing to work with even the junior members on the team" in the context of designing a system.
This is a fantastical maybe. The interview was system design.
Nonsense. Disney would make plenty of money on Frozen 17 with Snow White in the public domain. Extreme copyright lifetimes just stifle public creativity and are an excuse to implement draconian and authoritarian practices.
I know, but they don't. Outside of creative tech/art spheres, most people don't know much of anything about copyright, and telling them about "works expiring into the public domain" seems to violate their preconceived ideas about "property". It's tragic.
With interface-typing, is there a right way to use the type system to declare "this function takes a (statically-certifiable) positive integer", not because it would fail to output a value for other numbers, but because its output would be incorrect or meaningless?
In scientific programming I've often wanted that, to push asserting particular constraints on values to the caller and/or the type system (whether that's compile-time or runtime type checks). But those constrained types would always match the interface of their unconstrained forms.
You would have to write a wrapper class for an integer that can only be ever constructed with a positive integer without it throwing an exception, and then have it implement some PositiveInteger interface. The consumer would then have to trust that the provider has held true to the contract.
Needless to say, this code would be very verbose and ugly - what you would actually want is dependent typing, which solves this problem at the type system level.
Here is the implementation for Nat in Idris, for example:
data Nat =
Z
S Nat
With dependent typing, you can specify constraints on the values of function parameters, and have the compiler prove that only such values can be passed to those functions. For example, the following function only takes non-zero natural numbers, since the S constructor used in the parameter implies that the element can not be Z:
addTwoNonZero : (S n) -> Nat
addTwoNonZero = (+) 2
Contracts are ways to specify invariants for the runtime to verify. For example you could write a function with a contract saying that it takes a string containing all lowercase characters and returns a string containing all upper case characters. As far as the type system is concerned it just takes and returns strings but the runtime won't let a caller give you a value you don't want and won't let you return a value that doesn't match what you promised.
Dependent types essentially let you do the same but at the type level. For example you could have a function whose type says it takes a list of length N and a list of length M and returns a list of length N+M. Or maybe a type that represents a tuple containing a number N and a list of length N. Your code wouldn't type check unless the type system can prove the types. There's a lot of overlap with theorem provers in this space. Agda, Idris, and Coq are some decently popular languages in this category.
I find dependent types to be extremely powerful but sometimes the added overhead of figuring out how to encode an invariant into the type system is overwhelming.
A common approach in TypeScript, which doesn’t require a wrapping object or any runtime overhead, is called “branding” (or a variety of other names for similar concepts). It works by applying additional metadata about the value which makes it nominally incompatible with other values of the same underlying type. You can accomplish this a variety of ways, all of which have some tradeoffs. My (current) preference is to declare a class where the metadata is defined as a generic value assigned to a private property or a unique symbol, e.g.:
declare class Branded<Meta> {
private meta: Meta;
}
type Brand<T, Meta> = T & Branded<Meta>;
type UInt = Brand<number, 'UInt’>;
Yes. It’s called Refinement Types. I wish Rust came with Refinement Types from day one. That would have been a massive step forward instead of the much smaller step forward that Rust is currently taking.
