On very rare occasions I may do that for a user, if I happen to have extra RAM on hand from - for example - a broken machine. But by and large it's just going to be a whole machine upgrade.
All force-with-lease does it stop you from clobbering rather than you having to realise somehow that you did that. It seems like a no-brainer. What's the problem with it?
The only situations in which I would use a git push --force would be in which I have carefully considered what state the remote is in, and what state I want it to be be in, and I know that it's not a moving target it any way in between checking its state and doing the force.
Already, "git push" stops from clobbering: it warns that your proposed push is non-fast-forward and that you need --force.
If you are using git as intended, that's all the warning you need.
I understand that there are dubious workflows out there where a repo has multiple downstream users and they are all doing "git push --force", without coordinating with each other. They need a double force to make sure that they are clobbering what they think they are clobbering.
If that's not you (which it arguably shouldn't be, and certainly isn't me), you don't need to know about force-with-lease.
The only thing I would ever do with --force-with-lease is go "oh", and immediately repeat the command with --force, knowing that I'm in a situation in which the check is not applicable.
Even if the force were erasing a new commit that came from another repo, I would know that. Like I pushed something into upstream U from repo B, but I'm fixing the situation out of repo A which hasn't picked up the change. Yes, I know what I'm doing, that's why I'm using --force, and don't require --simon-says-force. I want the chain of commits I now have in A to be exactly what is in U, as a rare exception to normal git use. After I'm done from A, I will switch back to B, do a "git fetch" and probably "git reset --hard origin/master" to make B look like U.
Hm - I think I follow. But say I push a commit on a branch, then realise I messed up the commit message, so I --amend and push. I know that git push will fail, but if I git push -f then it won't detect that someone else pushed to the same branch in between - it'll just silently wipe their push.
Using --force-with-lease means the git push -f will succeed if no-one's pushed in between, and fail otherwise.
I haven't ever noticed Cloudflare having any issues on Firefox, so presumably that implies any unilateral actions in web standards have been worked around by CF to provide the service to Firefox as well.
I'm pretty frequently blocked by Cloudflare when I use Firefox on OpenBSD -- apparently it's too suspicious of a combination for their liking, or something. Even on Linux I've occasionally had issues. I've had to email site operators to ask them to change their configuration so I can actually be a customer of their business.
Oh, I mean people have known that high-sugar diets are a bad idea for about a century, but you could argue that it started coming more into the public consciousness in the early 21st century.
I have a Reolink but haven't got to Home Assistant yet. I'm happy switching to that, but for less technical (though still digital savvy) spouses - how would you say the switch would be for them?
I'd say it depends on what you are trying to do. If it is simple device control and media playing and other stuff, then all you need is to update [dashboards](https://www.home-assistant.io/dashboards/) when you add/move devices and the users will find it pretty easy and straightforward. My parents are not extremely tech savvy but they find Home Assistant easy to use when I make the dashboards thoughtfully.
Making automations and scripts is getting easier every update, but it has a small learning curve as the logic can get complex and you sometimes need to know details like entity IDs or raw states. And there are some simple missing features that some people are very used to. Home Assistant is improving that sort of thing constantly, but sometimes the device APIs do not allow all functionality without the OEM apps.
For example, the two biggest camera-related things that are missing in my opinion is that the camera viewer does not allow zoom or two way talk. It uses the native browser media player, and on both a Samsung tablet and all iOS devices, this means that you cannot zoom and pan around the image. This is obviously not an issue if you embed a dashboard such as Frigate into the HA UI, which IIRC supports both two way talk and zoom. But YMMV.
Basically what they said but you can do two way talk too! For me Frigate is the way to do cameras and there is a HA addin which does take a bit of configuring but there are loads of decent docs.
Home Assistant is quite a beast but start off simple and work on. It will repay you every step of the way. The first hurdle is to get it on the internet and usable via the app. Get that sorted and you are well on your way.
Make use of dynamic DNS to register a name to IP address and Lets Encrypt to sort out a SSL cert. There are add ins for both of those.
You can also subscribe to Nabu Casa and external access and a few other things will be taken care for you. 31 day trial and https://www.nabucasa.com/pricing/
The problem is that the civil service is inefficient and will bloat, because the only pressure on it to not is the individual good practice of leaders. There's no competitive/market pressure on it to naturally cap spending based on value.
I agree that GDS is a good thing, and I interviewed with them a few years ago and was impressed, but there is always the risk of bloat. I wish this could be fixed. I have some ideas about a similar concept in the NHS that would require the government hiring well-paid software engineers.
I agree, but also a civil servant has incredible pension opportunities, and defined benefit as well, and is hard to remove if they turn out to be bad. A contractor is a fixed cost, and individuals can be rejected with far less ceremony and cost.
If the civil service could shape its workforce with individualised salaries and quicker removal due to low performance I suspect it'd be a different story. I agree that consultancies and contractors are not cheap, but they are not the root cause.
Correct, the main reason why private sector is used is nothing to do with salary.
Productivity hasn't increased in the public sector since 1997 due to massive overhiring and bloat, salaries are probably 20-30% higher than they should be based upon on productivity. And the main cost, which isn't factored into the above tired lobbying arguments you read from "sources" in the Guardian, is pensions. Public-sector pensions will rise to 10% of all public spending in the near future.
This is all by intent by the way, the primary issue is that existing employees have impossibly good conditions and it is effectively impossible to reform the system in any way. So you have these people are massively overpaid by any measure screeching about private sector hiring...okay, alternative: 20-30% of workforce are sacked, pensions converted to private scheme with 2% employer contribution, stack rank every year until public sector productivity equals private sector productivity.
> Productivity hasn't increased in the public sector since 1997
Hmm, in the US the size of the civil service was roughly constant over 20 years, while the population it served grew enormously as well as the amount of service it was supposed to provide.
What you wrote has nothing to do with what the parent wrote.
>There's no competitive/market pressure on it to naturally cap spending based on value.
The parent is specifically claiming gov jobs don't allow for near market rates. That number would literally be formulated by current market pressures. If that goes lower in the private sector it will go lower in the gov sector.
For your point to be correct with respect to their specific example, you would have to claim the gov could pay £300k/year when the going market rate was £100k/year and there would be no pressure to prevent this. Whereas all it would take would be someone to ask why a run-of-the-mill programmer is getting paid 3x the market rate?
Right, but you simply stated but haven't explained why bloat is inevitable in the government except to say there is no market pressure applied in government. Whereas the parent is literally talking about employing people using market rates, an example based on market pressure.
> you simply stated but haven't explained why bloat is inevitable in the government except to say there is no market pressure applied in government. Whereas the parent is literally talking about employing people using market rates, an example based on market pressure.
The market pressure I'm referring to isn't on salaries, it's on departments. If a department gets the same budget next year because it managed to spend it all this year - a universal truth in UK public sector then departments only ever grow.
No, many of them fold, and even those that don't close departments and make redundancies. Companies can only grow if they're serving their customers with value, or if someone believes that they will do in future and puts money in for a bit to get them started.
If they get things wrong by overspending or overinvesting in the wrong thing, they don't have a wellspring of tax money to keep drawing from. They have to offer enough value to not only supply the good and make a profit, but also pay taxes on that profit.
As soon as you raise the pay scales to allow programmers to get paid market rates, the people whose jobs don’t command that kind of money in the market will exploit the new pay scales. In the private sector, the underwater basket weaving majors hate how much more programmers make. In the government, they’ll have the power to actually equalize that pay at the taxpayer’s expense.
> The problem is that the civil service is inefficient and will bloat, because the only pressure on it to not is the individual good practice of leaders.
repeated like a mantra.
As if megacorps somehow don't have inefficiencies. And how do we even measure efficiency?
You have it backwards. All governments are megacorps and have the same inefficiencies as them, plus the inefficiencies of being able legally stea- tax.
Yes Minister has something about this, I seem to remember. Because the government isn't profit motivated, they are instead motivated by the size of their budget and the number of employees.
I was part of a UK company that did sovereign data work on NHS data. They would give NHS trusts equity in the company in return for the data, and the data wouldn't leave the company; only results of paid research studies. The idea was to lower the increasing cost of pharma studies through early data-driven work.
The company bid for this contract, and lost to Palantir. I still can't believe that a company trying to do this in exactly the right way lost to a US intelligence company.
Is it really that surprising? The public would have voted to have the contract awarded to that company, but our benevolent leaders are usually sway by personal gain. This type of news is usually not widely and publicly discussed in the media as they are more concerned about much more trivial things or stocking fear and rage in the public.
Well, it was surprising at the time. I agree that the public should care about this, and I'm glad the specifics of Palantir are helping bring the issue to light, but it was still very odd. I think non-technical leaders are seduced by words like "platform" and "low code" (at the time), as it makes it seems technical issues seem trivial, and converts them into vendor management tasks, which they know how to do.
Yes. Their sales people don’t even negotiate - they just tell you this is price and done. Dunno why they need sales person if prices are non-negotiable
It’s because you’re in a leveraged position. Why would they negotiate when they don’t need to. Tell them thanks and that you’re churning tomorrow and watch the “OH WAIT”’s come flying through the door. The insidious thing about datadog is that it snakes its way into your entire business line and so it’s really hard to extricate yourself from it down the road.
reply