I think that seniority is closely correlated to understanding tradeoffs. Where a junior and a senior can make from time to time the same decision, how they do it is different. For junior it's often the only option he sees, or doesn't even realize he's making the decision that will have consequences. Whereas senior will think of the context and what are the possible options. All of them will be suboptimal and tradeoffs will be involved. And he'll pick the one that makes most sense with limited information from the context (tech properties, people impacted by the decisions, effort vs importance etc.).
...And senior's decision will unfortunately often be suboptimal as well, but that's what it is. He at least tried to understand the consequences and didn't have access to more information to evaluate it better. But he tried and will reflect on the failure and hopefully do slightly better next time at least in similar context.
Thanks for the explanation. To my understanding, that's only necessary when I actually use the certificate, not as the part of certificate validation. I assumed the validation would happen with me setting some DNS record with particular value they can validate or something similar.
Thanks. I'd actually prefer to by through Namecheap as well. I saw RapidSSL and PositiveSSL certs, but I thought they are not suitable if I want both w/ and w/o 'www' subdomain.
So if I buy RapidSSL or PositiveSSL through Namecheap for www.example.com, they will automatically come with example.com in SAN?
Also, why do they have "You also need to have a dedicated IP address" in the requirements? Is this used somewhere in the validation process? I'm asking because the website runs on top of AWS S3, so I do not have dedicated IPs.
I've moved completely away from Google. DuckDuckGo for search, here.com for maps, fastmail.com for mail (using my domain, so I'm not locked in), Firefox as browser.
It was not as hard as I expected.
I guess the email was the hardest one do to. I needed to change quite a few addresses for different accounts. I've also put a permanent vacation responder stating that I use new email. It was definitely worth it. And the best: even from usability perspective, I like fastmail.com better than Google.
Seriously one of the worst posts I've seen on top page in a long while.
Disclaimer: from here on I'll also be a bit opinionated, hardly can be worse than the post. And yes he did write the disclaimer, and no, still doesn't help at all.
Just LOL.
What's the difference between Python and Ruby and the conclusion?
Scala doesn't get him excited? Well, can be if he's "not clever enough to program in Haskell". (Not a bad thought-terminating cliché btw)
The best: "limited compile-time safety (you can lint and unit test)" of node? And is offset by "not creating a large codebase!" ?!
Half the languages he mentioned are less verbose than JS.
Oh, and he didn't mention the coolest feature of JS: weak typing, which works perfectly for long-term projects.
On the other hand Lisp? Ah, I'll stop here.
He could have just written "here are the languages I'm currently interested in" and be done with that.
I've heard it said that Scala is the new C++. But to me that doesn't sound bad at all. Sure, you can shoot yourself in the foot, but you can also design beautiful things, the choice is yours.
"Only" gmail? But isn't email the most important part of your online life? I moved away completely from Google. Fastmail.fm instead of gmail was one of my first moves. And I never looked back...
Tarsnap is really great service. It's obviously targeted at tech people, but if you are one, just check it out. I do not feel the need for any wrappers as the CLI is quite nice, but your mileage may vary.
What I'm backing up are a few true crypt containers. Not out of paranoia (well...), but because I use TC anyway to separate different kinds of context (by usage and importance). The nice thing is that incremental backups feature still works great. Compression is not really useful though. Currently I have ~70gb of data, ~20gb being unique.
The service is also priced quite reasonably. Highly recommended.
To be fair Google is a great company. But because of some actions they have taken they are not so outstandingly appealing as they were few years ago. Of course that's natural given their size. Many big companies are way worse. But still, they are now just another company that's good to their employees (many of whom are still quite passionate about it). No more, no less, that's all Google is.
The problem is, currently it's not really mature enough. The whole idea is to use one interface so you don't end up with writing special cases for different IaaS. The problem is that it simply isn't fully-featured and that the interface for different platform differs even when it's not really necessary.
I've been using it to interact with AWS and OpenStack, but still end up with lots of special cases and even falling back to boto for some AWS features (e.g. CloudWatch).
I really hope they fix the interface issues and cover more features of specific platforms in future.
This is the real issue. They want more power while claiming it's in the good hands, so you shouldn't worry. Your private data is safe. Your rights are respected. Your have nothing to worry if you are not a bad guy.
Government constantly shows that it shouldn't be trusted with anything sensitive. It makes stupid mistakes, but never admits that. How many cases happen that nobody ever realizes, because they are swept under the rug?
In the end we all should believe that they are "good" and competent. In spite of them proving us wrong all the time...
...And senior's decision will unfortunately often be suboptimal as well, but that's what it is. He at least tried to understand the consequences and didn't have access to more information to evaluate it better. But he tried and will reflect on the failure and hopefully do slightly better next time at least in similar context.