The downside to this approach (in TF < 0.12), however, will become apparent when you want to modify the number of instances in one or both pools. This arrises from the way hcl v1 manages the counter index with each resource in the state; That is each resource is linked to a specific index and when that index is altered in someway, terraform will attempt to adjust the resources at each respective index accordingly.
Because of these headaches, we decided to abandon hcl for these use cases and ended up writing our own preprocessor that takes a JSON configuration and generates individual JSON-based HCL (ie. .json.tf) that terraform can then use. We can leverage proper templating to generate many variants of a single resource in a higher level language, while still using terraform to manage the infrastructure and it only adds one additional step to the plan + apply process.
I'm sorry, but the safety features in question here were software upgrades. The incremental cost to Boeing to add it to every aircraft during manufacturing would be negligible.
In my view it should be criminal to withhold such safety features for profit.
This is really awesome. I just killed about an hour playing it part way through.
I was saddened by the fact that I lost progress when I left the page. It would be nice if progress could be save via cookies or something.
One other thing that would be nice is the ability to offer hints. These could even be just an external link to relevant material on wikipedia or equivalent.
Unless you've physically removed or disconnected the wireless interface, there's still a chance that a firmware vulnerability could lead to your TV being hacked via a remote and/or side-channel attack similar to what was demonstrated in the article.
A lot of these systems were built such that date stamps were simple 6 character text fields within a larger ascii-based file format on computers build in the 60s and 70s or earlier.
Space (both RAM and storage) is a premium on these systems and therefore much thought is given to what you place within any given row. As a result, no one stored unix timestamps as that would have required 10 characters more per timestamp per row, which would have had other ramifications on other parts of the code and/or memory. It would have required all stored records to be re-written somehow, which depending on the available online storage may have been an impossible task in and of itself. Not to mention how one would handle the recovery of any existing backups.
Due to these complexities, most organizations settled for code that shifted the meaning of the 2 digit year by some predetermined offset.
I feel that part of the problem here is that booking sites don't tend to be fully transparent on how much any given flight really costs, beyond the initial ticketing cost. Extra costs are typically hidden and the UX is optimized for finding the cheapest possible ticket price, ignoring fees and overhead.
Tangentially, in some ways, its a fact of reality in the US that the price you see will almost never be the price you pay, which is generally higher. Americans seem to accept this as a norm and it still baffles me even after 17 years.
The thing I don't like about such plugins is that it suppresses the conversation surrounding the practice of forced removals and overbooking in general and the incident in particular.
A much better approach would be to be vocal about your choice and why it was made through common social media outlets. Even simple posts that express your decision to boycott and why help drive conversation around what's happening.
Besides, if you genuinely intend to boycott United why would filtering results make a such difference? Are people worried that seeing their prices may convince them otherwise?
Free market and competition in health care, really?
Delivering the same level of care and services for everyone is at odds with the notion of a free market. How exactly are providers to compete, over the long-term, when everyone demands the same level of care at the same cost or better?
I don't have a problem with airlines creating cheaper seats that they can market to a segment of customers.
What I do have a problem with is the lack of transparency of what you're getting when you attempt to research and compare fares. In my opinion, this is what the government should focus on.
This also assumes that the "eyeballs" looking at the code are doing it for the greater good and not personal profit. Given a big enough jackpot, do you really believe that the person who finds a loophole in the algorithm will do the right thing?
As someone in a different thread put it "It's not so much about the cost of the device as much as it's about the time invested in setting things up".
It's very poor form to sunset a product without offering users (your early adopters none the less) a easy migration path to another product. Had there actually been data standards for setup and captured data, I'd expect the ability to export my setup and data so that I can use it to configure an alternative product.
As far as I know, In the US, Apple has always fully and willingly complied with legal requests for data stored on it's servers. Even in this specific controversial case, Apple handed over the relevant data to the authorities upon legal request.
Where they are drawing the line is to "break in" to their customers' devices upon legal request. As far as I can tell from this article, there is nothing to suggest that the Chinese government has ever made such a request.
It is therefore very misleading of this article to compare the requests as if they are the same and to suggest that Apple is complying with similar requests in China while denying the US government.
I'm not so sure about 160 chars, but I do agree that 80 chars is a little ridiculous these days. I have not yet one good argument for 80 chars.
Most terminals and monitors today will easily go to 100 chars, which is typically where I prefer to break lines. This gives room for 3-4 levels of nesting (using 4 char tabs), which is about the max depth you'd want to nest. There are exceptions of course but for the most part any more than 3-4 levels deep and you should be looking at refactoring.
The downside to this approach (in TF < 0.12), however, will become apparent when you want to modify the number of instances in one or both pools. This arrises from the way hcl v1 manages the counter index with each resource in the state; That is each resource is linked to a specific index and when that index is altered in someway, terraform will attempt to adjust the resources at each respective index accordingly.
Because of these headaches, we decided to abandon hcl for these use cases and ended up writing our own preprocessor that takes a JSON configuration and generates individual JSON-based HCL (ie. .json.tf) that terraform can then use. We can leverage proper templating to generate many variants of a single resource in a higher level language, while still using terraform to manage the infrastructure and it only adds one additional step to the plan + apply process.