Have just read above that it's possible. It's interesting actually. So I guess I'll do that once I buy a new mac. I have a maxed out pro, with i9 and so on, so throwing it await would be a shame
Why? I can upgrade, that's not a problem. I'm just saying macOS works fine so far, almost all of the software works too. But I see increasing amount of announcements like this one suggesting that I'll have to replace hardware to get the latest versions. So I guess I will do that only to be able to use that software, not to get better performance.
I guess I'm the only one who is still on x64. I don't like I'm pushed to migrate only because the software wants that, otherwise the hardware works with no problem.
Exactly. The commit message is supposed to be for the future developer, not to generate changelog.
And the main case when that developer reads the commit message is when he doesn't understand _why_ that commit exists. Not what it changes, but what is the purpose of certain lines. So he runs "blame", sees commits, the original developers are not with the company anymore, the old JIRA may not exist too, and the only hint is the commit message.
That may sound strange, but it turns out I don't use WASM as well. Last time I touched this part was ~8 month ago, and WASM was just one of the experiments, and I forgot about this. Just remember it was hard to find a right approach initially, on how to execute JS without NodeJS environment. But with a right set of polyfills it works now.
Anyway, I see we have a bit different approaches on how to handle JS part, and I could get some ideas from that.
Nice project, thank you for working on it. I was trying to figure out the architecture, and I understand that it runs a Deno VM to execute JS on the backend?
I was working on something similar, but for JVM backends [1]. And it seems there are a lot to learn from your project. For example, I'm using GraalVM that executes JS on the server. But I have to compile JS to WebAssembly because otherwise it produces a lot integration issues on the backend. Do you do the same?
I'm curious why you can't legally pay in crypto?
I heard a few times about companies paying in crypto to their remote workers. In fact I heard that a US company was paying in BTC withing the US, though I'm not sure I trust this particular story. I also see that Deel accepts USDC, and to my understanding they convert to local currency of the remote worker.
Is that all illegal? Truly want to understand.
I had a bad Cloudflare experience. So, my card on file got no balance one day (my bad, I forgot to update to a new card), and they just turned off the services.
They somehow managed to charge partial amount (like 80% of the bill), but decided to turn off everything anyway, even the services that could be covered by those 80%. They turned off what they offer for free, and we were unable to change the setting, like instead of their CDN point traffic to an S3 bucket, etc.
When they do that they basically freeze your account. I mean you cannot provide a new card to pay the outstanding bill, or do anything at all actually. You're not welcomed here anymore. Locked out. That's is a terrible way to react to a payment failure after being a paying customer for a few years.
It was hard to reach the support, and it took multiple days until I found someone on Reddit who looked at our ticket and it eventually helped.
PS I had much worse experience with GCP after being a loyal customer of them for like 15 years, so Clouflare is good.
We made a script to avoid such situations. It checks the dependencies, just by parsing the package.json (or the lock file), checking the relevant time on npm registry, and returns error if it finds a too fresh package added.
We run it on CI for each commit/PR, and if a developer tries to commit a change that updates a JS dependency to a too recent it prevents the build from running, and so on. Basically we expect that a Supply Chain attacks on NPM would be noticed in a couple of week, and we enforce this time window to our code.
Ah, I had a similar situation with them. They also closed my personal account immediately after closing the business account. I was really surprised it works that way.
I mean the arrest. But as I just learned [1] he is being allowed to make periodic travels to Dubai since recently. So things got better for him now, but that's just since July 2025. Before that he was physically staying in France since August 2024, which I would call as "living" as it's the place where he spent most of his time.
AFAIK the recommended way is to open a bank account through smaller banks (aka neobanks). They just send you a card to address specified and once you activated it you (first) get a bank account for payments and (second) can use it to prove address for others.
Also, if you legally rent then you get the council tax documents, though it takes roughly a month for them to send. This is another proof of address.
And the bills of course, but again it takes a month or so to receive the first letter.
So it's unclear how a digital ID solves anything in regarding the proof of address.
In the world where the non-questionable financial organizations decide who can access them or not, based on the place they were born at. I.e., the current world.
In the times of AI it's really easy to verify the question above. I had literally just copied it to the chat and made a research (also asked to cite and manually verified the links).
So it says there are 57 billionaires in UK with total worth of £182 billion. Non-billionaire wealth is £10.13 trillion, btw, so it's definitively not 50%. UK population is 68.3 million people. So everyone gets their £11,311 and that's it.
UPDATE there are £772.8 billions if you include non-UK citizens, but happen to live here. If you seize their money as well that will give you the total of £11K
That's different because in Bitcoin's case there was a clear violation of the specification, of how it supposed to work. So the bug was fixed to make the software working as it intended to be. If there were two node implementations then one would just stop to work until fixed.
In Ethereum's case there were no violation of any specification. In fact there were no bug in the blockchain itself. Just someone took founder's money, they didn't like it and so they decided to get them back. And note that after that, there were bugs in the nodes code that were breaking the spec (which you should compare to the bitcoin's bug), but because of multiple node implementations only some of the nodes stopped and so we don't care about those issues.