Yes, identity theft includes things as basic as using someone else's credit card. I learned that when I reported that someone rifled through our car, took a credit card, and tried to use it at a gas station.
We sync a shared folder with dropbox. Backup with backblaze.
Our local "copy" is basically our personal laptops. This has required manually upgrading our SSDs over the years though because we have around 1TB of photos and videos.
Our off-site copy is backblaze. We don't keep a non-cloud off-site copy.
This is for California, not sure about other states:
Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people.
Lots of drivers don't understand this.
Lots of drivers also don't understand a red right arrow (as opposed to a red solid circle) means you cannot turn right on red. Most "no right on red" intersections have both the arrow and a sign (and many drivers ignore both).
I've always thought the differences between the solid light and arrow was too minor for the average driver. I mean, look at the skills of the average driver.
In Washington state unprotected lefts weren't legal maneuvers for quite a while. They were introduced gradually starting at intersections where it would be a traffic benefit, for signaling the state adopted a blinking yellow arrow that then goes solid to signify the 'almost over' meaning of a typical yellow light.
One thing common in Texas is red light + green arrow to indicate a protected left/right turn. I suspect it's a lot easier to parse quickly for most people than green circle vs green arrow.
Is it? I see people sitting stopped at green arrows all the time because the red stop light takes priority in their mind. Presenting clearly contradictory signals at the same time can't be the best option.
Yeah honestly I'm not sure how would I take that. Maybe expect it to be a malfunctioning light? When presented with both 'stop' and 'go' you can bet I'm not going unless I explicitly verify that nothing is coming.
Really? The grandparent says it's common in Texas, but in my experience it's pretty common in all of the US (at least in urban and suburban areas), and shouldn't be surprising or odd to anyone who's learned to drive in the US or has been driving here more than a few months.
But I agree with you that you should verify that no one is coming in that case; that's sound advice for most all situations, really.
It may be a kneejerk reaction combined with me being very rurally located for work for these past 4 years, I think there are 3 traffic lights within a 45 minute drive and none of them will show red and green at the same time except in separate lanes when straight is red and left has a green.
The protected left should be the middle yellow with an associated cutout for the left arrow inside the light, with the normal through yellow turning on both the green and yellow left turn arrow, but likely way too many years of convention to make the change.
Are you referring to the traffic signals that have five options? That is, going clockwise starting at bottom left: green arrow, yellow arrow, standard red light, standard yellow light, standard green light
> a red right arrow ... means you cannot turn right on red
This varies a lot by state. Several allow turning (after a stop) on a red arrow. Some even allow turning left on a red arrow, if it's onto a one-way street.
That's seems unnecessarily confusing. Why even bother with the red arrow at all then? I guess it could be useful in cases where the straight-through traffic is green, but you want right-turning traffic to stop before turning, but is that common? Or even a useful thing? Like, I feel like if you've set things up that way, maybe the intersection is just designed poorly.
It is definitely confusing. In Washington state, right red arrow does not prohibit turning on red. I learned this after people started beeping at me to go at such an intersection. And yes, that intersection (Queen Anne and Mercer in Seattle) is confusing and poorly designed.
I don't think I've seen many intersections with red arrows unless there is a dedicated turn lane, where green yellow and red are all arrows. If it's a right turn in a right on red jurisdiction, without a sign expressing no right on red, why would red arrow be different than red circle?
MA allows right on red arrow after stop (absent a sign to the contrary). There are intersections where right on red is prohibited to protect a pedestrian walk phase that’s aligned with the green for straight ahead traffic.
> A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people.
> Lots of drivers don't understand this.
This is logical.
But, I've seen firsthand in Quebec (the city of Sherbrooke) where that's not the case. A driver may have a green arrow at the SAME TIME that a pedestrian has a walk signal. And in St. Thomas USVI I've seen opposing traffic have conflicting signals too (green arrow at same time oncoming traffic has green to go straight!)
Learned to drive (a long time ago) in PA and now live in CO. You’re right it’s all weird.
In PA, red arrow is just a regular red light that happens to be in a turn-only lane. All laws are the same as normal red light, the lane marking restrict your movement.
In CO, red arrow means stop and no turn on red regardless of lane markings.
Just about all traffic control laws are standardized federally except lights. That feels like the most important one to reduce confusion.
Not sure I believe this. Obviously it's a fuzzy statement but I don't think I've ever once in my life seen someone blatantly ignore oncoming traffic due to having an unprotected left signal.
Any one driver's experience is necessarily extremely limited, a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of all miles driven or traffic lights stopped at. You not having seen that happen should not be expected to be representative at all.
I have seen that happen, though fortunately there was enough time for both drivers to avoid a crash.
> Note that whether you have a solid green or a green arrow matters. A solid green means you can turn left, but you might have cross traffic. A green arrow means you're protected and as long as other people are obeying traffic signals, you shouldn't run into other people.
This is the same in the southeast, and I assume the rest of the US.
Recently "flashing yellow" [1,2,3] has been introduced to mean left turns must yield to right of way traffic. These are gradually replacing solid green signals.
This is confusing, generally a blinking yellow when going straight means slow down but you have right of way. A blinking left yellow would be different from a normal blinking yellow.
Yeah, it should probably be a blinking red arrow in order to be consistent. I'm sure some committee decided that wasn't different enough from normal red arrow
This varies somewhat based on locality. In Oregon, for example, there is no special significance to a red right turn arrow. If a right turn on red is not permitted, there will be a sign.
I had this problem when I first got a 30" monitor - I was constantly losing my mouse cursor, it took forever to move over to things, etc. To solve it I wrote a program for storing and restoring mouse cursor positions (along with focusing the app under it) and it really helped.
It was nice being able to have multiple windows visible at once when I was doing things, and to be able to switch between them quickly. Mobility was basically not a problem since the mouse instantly moved to the location I expected it to.
Nowadays I mostly use the keyboard and just use standard hotkeys to switch the app, mostly because I've been too lazy to see if my program still works.
I also lost the mouse cursor fairly often. I turned up the size and acceleration and got into the habit of throwing it into the top left corner which either opened the applications overlay (in GNOME shell) or fanned out all the windows (in Mac OS).
This reminds me - a Java language architect was asked what his favorite non-Java JVM language is. He said Clojure because it's not trying to just be a "better Java".
It's not as ambitious as an MMO, but I like to use MUDs to learn new languages. I've been (slowly) working on one to learn Elixir and I'm actually finding the concurrency model somewhat difficult to use for the MUD - especially the single world that every player connects to.
But altogether my design feels fairly un-Elixir-like. It seems like the language would shine more in a problem space with more process isolation. When it comes to the game world, pretty much any process could potentially depend upon any other process. Especially once you get into scripting NPCs.
I took a look at ExVenture when I first started working on this. A lot seems to have changed since then, but from what I could tell at the time there were some potential races. For example, movement processing seemed like it allowed for the possibility of players to seemingly move through doors that were closed (at least, from the players' point of view). I could easily have been wrong though since I'm new to Elixir.
That said, a requirement for scripting I have is the ability to chain together arbitrary actions in an atomic fashion without any races or deadlocks. Content creators can create really complex scripts that involve arbitrary locations and actions. I wasn't sure how I would achieve this goal with ExVenture.
If concurrency doesn't help, you can always just not use it. You don't need to run logically separate modules in different processes.
What if you put the entire state in a single GenServer? You can still delegate modifying different parts of the state to different modules, just call functions in those modules from a single server process.
It does help. Any given action will modify a fairly small part of the overall state (at most around .01% of it). But what part of the state it can modify is fairly arbitrary based upon the action. Your dependency could be dataA, dataB, then dataC. Or dataC, dataV, then dataA. Which, if you isolate into processes could create races and/or deadlocks. They would be very unlikely, but they could still happen.
This is why I went with software transactional memory. In the generally unlikely event that there's some overlap, the changes will just be rolled back and re-done.
Why would any Linux shop use SQL Server anyways? Why would they use .NET Core? The only people I know pushing .NET Core are .NET people, not Linux people. My general rule is to never use a technology where your primary platform is a second class citizen. It just makes things a pain: not only could support be dropped in the future because there's no profit in it, its also harder to find answers to problems on the internet.
It is still a 2nd class citizen, IMO – but I think that's improving rapidly. Some examples:
-IDE support from MS is markedly better on Windows (real Visual Studio) and Mac (VS for Mac). VS Code+Omnisharp is still pretty rough around the edges for C#.
Yup, but I think the problem stems from symlinks being relatively uncommon in NTFS compared to nix filesystems - it just wasn't a priority for the original .NET designers who were mostly targeting Windows. https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2016/12/02/symlin...
Sometimes I think that Linux is the 1st class citizen for .NET Core when it comes to a server stack. .NET Core is seriously awesome since version 2.0 on all platforms.
I've actually had more issues with it in Windows than on Linux/Mac. Though I will say VS proper is much nicer than VS Code for C# development. It will improve. I'd still prefer to use mostly node, which gets its' own ire from the developer community.
- dotnet-cli will try to cache a bunch of junk into its install folder, rather than respecting $XDG_CACHE_HOME, or even just using a plain old dotfile. These days it just generates an annoying warning on each run, but it used to be a hard error.
- OmniSharp just plain doesn't work on NixOS, because it hardcodes a bunch of Ubuntu paths.
- It seems to support automatically switching between multiple SDK versions, but I've never been able to get that to work.
We are about to launch a new .NET core service and I've been working with .NET core for about 2 years now. Not only is Linux not a second class citizen (it is the easiest platform to run on and scale), but dropping support would make no sense from a business or technical standpoint. Microsoft is making a ton of money by supporting cross platform.
We aren't using SQL Server, but I've used most of the big RDBMS and SQL Server is the best. It just tends to be more expensive.
Because Microsoft makes some of the best tools for developers.
Because sql server is a fantastic product that has basically no real equivalent on the market.
And funnily enough, I always feel that .Net core primary platform was Linux and not windows. Same for visual studio code, and I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, new sql server features won't appear first on the Linux version. And actually it's somewhat the case with sql server big data cluster.
> Because Microsoft makes some of the best tools for developers.
NuGet constantly fails silently when trying to restore packages.
Visual Studio is an editor built primarily around a folder tree, with no competent way to navigate that tree without constantly losing your place. It's also the only IDE that I have used where I just had to give up trying to find the application logs.
> Because sql server is a fantastic product that has basically no real equivalent on the market.
MSSQL's utter incompetence makes MySQL's `utf8` troubles look like small potatoes. For example: the `uniqueidentifier` type doesn't have a defined endianness, meaning that there is no guarantee that two languages reading the same cell will produce the same UUID string.
SSMS is an unusable hog. There is just no nice way to put it.
SQLCMD must have been designed by people who have never actually used a CLI.
> Wow, you must've been trying hard to cherry pick those.
Not really. Just try keeping a .NET/MSSQL environment running for a few days, and the stories will build up quickly.
> SSMS is mature, reliable and makes my life easier meanwhile pgAdmin is just viable, but nothing more.
But psql is good enough that I pretty much never have to touch pgAdmin. And for ad-hoc editing (the only case where graphical editors have any real advantage), surprise, SSMS can't edit the results of custom queries. pgAdmin doesn't care, as long as the query contains the primary key.
And there is also a lot of polish that SSMS just doesn't have. Like how it forgets the order of your tabs as soon as they overflow. Or how you can't just do an ad-hoc query and see the result, you need to open a new query "document".
>> NuGet constantly fails silently when trying to restore packages.
> what?
That was my reaction too. Sometimes it decides that it won't build at all because it complains about unresolved references. Sometimes it builds but assets will be missing. And of course it's an opaque black box in the usual MS fashion, so there is no way to force it to retry, or to find out why it's not cooperating.
When you type Install-Package in Visual Studio, sometimes it just fails to find the package at all. You have to search for it first, then type Install-Package, and then it actually downloads etc.
...huh? SSMS (plus the free Red Gate SQL Search addin) is hands-down the best DB tooling I've ever used. If you're aware of similarly full-featured equivalents for Postgres (or any other RDBMS), I'd love to hear about them.
have you tried DataGrip? I went from SSMS to DataGrip for most of my database work. SSMS is still better for management of the SQL Server instance, but for database work, DataGrip is a lot nicer than SSMS (and SSMS is a lot nicer than a LOT of other tools for other RDBMSs)
I have tried DataGrip briefly with Postgres – my first impression was that it's a competent tool for things that are generic across all RDBMSs, but limited in RDBMS-specific management/administration functionality. Not far off from what you said :)
If you have time, what about DataGrip do you find to be "a lot nicer than SSMS"? Which features should I (a DataGrip noob) try using?
First of all, I don't think I've personally scratched the surface of what you can do. But I use it mostly as a direct replacement of what I would have done in SSMS.
First of all Start writing queries and see how much it will help you, for the most it will autocomplete lots of things, once you are used to joins been auto written for you, hard to go back!
personal preference, but, it supports vim bindings.
Its table editor works on partial queries for updates, so you can select something and as long as you selected the key, you can do a update using the table editor. Speaking of the table editor, it is vastly superior and allows batching of changes, it shows you queries its going to do, has lots of helpers for all sorts of things including datetimes. It has lots of options to capture the table in lots of formats. It also allows across database comparisons of tables and synchronization or generation of sql scripts of differences/database changes.
Its ide is standard jetbrains ide ish and has lots editing goodness, refactoring, auto generation, surrounds, templates, local change history, lots of navigation tools ( go to references / usages etc )
> What makes SQL Server so much better than, say, PostgreSQL or MariaDB?
Tooling and speed. I can vouch for the quality of SQL Server's tooling – SSMS is very nicely integrated with SQL Server.
If you watch the CMU DB Group's lectures on YouTube, they mention that the commercial RDBMSs have put a lot more time+research into query optimization than the open source ones (and apparently SQL Server has the best optimizer).
That's too vague to be of any use. What tooling? What benchmarks?
> I can vouch for the quality of SQL Server's tooling – SSMS is very nicely integrated with SQL Server.
The fact that you like SSMS doesn't really say anything about tooling for PostgreSQL. I find the quality of PostgreSQL tooling great.
There is certainly plenty of reason to believe PostgreSQL is superior to MS SQL [1]. I don't agree with everything in the referenced article, but your claim of MS SQL being far superior is, so far, completely unsubstantiated.
As I’m sure you’re aware, publishing benchmarks of commercial RDBMSs is usually prohibited - I’m just passing on what I’ve heard from an expert about query optimizers.
Not using it for anything super critical yet, but Patroni is pretty much plug-and-play, and becomes transparent to the client once set up. No need to worry about whether your client supports MultiSubnetFailover, or whether you remembered to copy your users manually.
Biggest down side for me, is .Net Core 3 had some dramatic breaks, it's better than 2 and before, but still been burdensome.
There's two decades of answers and examples out there, many of which don't work. Not to mention many third party libraries that do stuff that's now in the box.
Biggest gripe to me, is lack of in the box support for PEM files in the crypto library. There are others, Core 3 breaks DI for logging in the Startup is another big one.
In the end, it's decent... I'd still largely rather use Node, or if I need more performance Rust of even Go. I will say I don't hate it, it's just frustrating finding examples and answers.
Not disagreeing on JS/Node... I will say I get so much better velocity in terms of practical work done with my time. But I've also seen people do some goofy things in JS, but will counter that most people are snooty about it and don't bother actually learning the language, reminds me a lot of VB a couple decades ago (the culture against it).
* don't care if you have a CS degree (we have hired plenty of bootcamp grads)
* are 100% remote which is super valuable to some folks
* aren't looking for super specialized skills--we build websites and web applications on some common open source stacks.
* explicitly don't pay top dollar. As the CEO says in the typical hiring conversation, every so often we'll be talking to folks who are also talking to Microsoft and Facebook, and we'll quietly back away--we choose to compete on different axes than dollars.
But maybe we're on the lower end. We definitely pay above that band for folks with 1-2 years of experience.
Fwiw, when I interned in a suburb of Atlanta, as a sophomore at a company no one cares about, I made $25/hr. I believe the people who went there full time started at ~75k.
Reminds me of what my brother in law says: I don't want to be stuck doing tech support for my family.
With my luck, it would catastrophically fail while out of town, leaving the wife and kids without internet.
My dad set up a lot of complicated stuff like this. As people are prone to do, eventually he died, and it just made it difficult to troubleshoot technical problems for mom. So now the equipment sits in some corner, unused, because we replaced it all with something your average AT&T technician could troubleshoot.
> Are you advocating buying internet service from two different companies and paying for both every month in case one fails for a brief period of time?
That's not an unreasonable solution, considering most people already pay two ISPs (one fixed, and another for their phone/tablet). When your home wifi goes down, you're going to fall-back to your mobile anyway. I'm thinking of getting an extra data SIM, an LTE modem and do auto-failover.
--edit--
My needs are somewhat unique - my traveling laptop is on its last legs (and will be replaced by a cheap chromebook. Desktops/servers get better bang for the buck compared to laptops. Go figure!), so I tunnel onto a server at home for heavy-lift computing. If the internet fails when I'm not home, I'd be left stranded (and this has happened).
In my case my Surface Book 2 gives me all the firepower I need to not miss my desktop, and it also has a PCIE SSD on it like my desktop. I do agree, sometimes tethering is highly useful, at least in my case on my laptop. I try to keep as many things as offline capable as possible.
That's literally what the author of the article describes.
From a practical point of view I think it's silly to do such a thing for a residential situation, but I can appreciate using it as a learning experience for building systems like this.
Depends how reliable your isp is ans how much it costs if it goes down.
3g is good enough backup for me, but for the office we go for two routers two isps and vrrp on the lan side, load balance across the wans, with failover to the other one.
If I wanted a seemless non-SPOF network for my family, I'd put in two mikrotiks, with the primary on mains, and secondary on UPS, £120 for a pair to do routing at a decent (1gig) speed on the main, and built in 4G on the reserve.
Then I'd put the primary router on the wired line, the other one on a 4G sim which did nothing but heartbeats unless the wired line went down. If the wired line shut down, traffic would reroute via 4G within 10 seconds or so. If the primary router went down, the backup router would take over in a similar time frame. Might put some capping on the 4G router to the netflix/etc boxes to keep bandwidth costs down.
UPS would be about 10W, so £45 for a 4 hour one. Possibly look at renewable energy of some sort to keep the UPS going during an extended outage.
I'd then VRRP on the lan side with primary on the main router (which would have a backup route via the secondary router)
Cloud based VM to do monitoring/alerting and land outgoing openvpn tunnels from both routers to allow secure remote access.
£170, £10 a month plus main ISP, and an hour of config.
However in reality having an ISP provided router and showing them how to tether in a problem works fine. OK, they lose their devices if the main circuit goes off, but running those over 4G can be pricey.
It kinda surprised me.