there are cases where the president has made the lives of individuals miserable in every presidency we’ve lived through. Stating that this is a terrible fact of life and doesn’t justify the harms.
what kind of powers do you envision the judiciary having to rectify these wrongs?
>what kind of powers do you envision the judiciary having to rectify these wrongs?
Isn't that supposed to be figured out already? What is "checks and balances" if they can just be ignored? Impeachment for ignoring supreme court orders would be one example.
Obama dropped a bomb on a us citizen without giving him due process. How should this case be handled? Like i said, american presidents causing untold misery on some people is a tale as old as time. The point is to create a system that is, on balance, just.
>i think i’ve written enough to show that’s that last thing im trying to do.
I mean, that may be your intent, but so far you've brought up Brazil and Obama in a conversation about Trump ignoring the courts orders and said nothing about Trump ignoring the orders.
I feel like it's much more reasonable to blame the companies & people that are making it a necessity to have some sort of protection like Anubis for ruining the web (over-aggressive scrapers, bot farms, etc.), rather than blaming Anubis.
When viewed as a percent of their annual revenue, rather than an absolute number, it's not really all that massive. It's like 3% or so.
And you can't really just look at the 3%, you have to factor in what benefits (money, political sway, whatever) they received in exchange for the data. For simplicity, if they got paid, I don't know, $150M/yr from China for the data and they've been sending data for (at least) 4 years... They would have made a profit despite the fine!
($150M is obviously pulled out of my ass, just as a demonstration of how when you look at the fines from a bigger context, it might just be a line item on the expense report that's worth taking the risk on)
> When viewed as a percent of their annual revenue,
I've always found this viewpoint a bit childish, with little regard for how businesses work IRL (even the ignoring the obvious profits vs revenue part). Reminds me of how every comment section re: some crime story is people calling for death penalty or how a mob should kill them first. Justice is never that simple.
I understand people want businesses they don't like to simply not exist anymore but that doesn't mean it's rational to throw up insane fines because you spent 2min doing back of a napkin math of revenue * (imaginary deterrent %)
> For simplicity, if they got paid, I don't know, $150M/yr from China for the data and they've been sending data for (at least) 4 years... They would have made a profit despite the fine!
The Chinese government doesn't need to pay companies to exfiltrate data from companies within their reach.
It's childish to view fines as a percent of revenue rather than an absolute number...? That's certainly an odd take.
Fines are meant to be a deterrent. If you fine Microsoft $50,000 they will literally not notice. If you fine my locally owned convenience store $50,000 they will probably be forced to close. It's absurd to ignore that.
>I understand people want businesses they don't like to simply not exist anymore
I did not say this, or anything close to it.
My entire point was that looking at a number in a vacuum and saying "that's massive" or "that's not that big" is silly. What's "massive" to some companies is a tiny blip on the radar of other companies.
I cannot understand anyone who thinks looking at fines in context is "childish".
Not looking at fines in context is something only the largest and richest of companies would be a proponent for, because it would make the fines absolutely meaningless for them while being effective against anyone smaller.
I'm convinced that when someone makes an argument using revenue vs profit, it is either a literal teenager (look at that huge number! I've never seen a number so big), or an inauthentic poster (just putting the fries in the bag)
This is also covered in their original blog (linked from this post in the first paragraph).
"As for how equity is determined, it really deserves its own in-depth treatment, but in short, equity compensates for risk – and in a startup, risk reduces over time: the first employee takes much more risk than the hundredth."
In short, they pay everyone the same as they pay themselves.
"We decided to do something outlandishly simple: take the salary that Steve, Jess, and I were going to pay ourselves, and pay that to everyone. The three of us live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Steve and I each have three kids; we knew that the dollar figure that would allow us to live without financial distress – which we put at $175,000 a year – would be at least universally adequate for the team we wanted to build. And we mean everyone literally: as of this writing we have 23 employees, and that’s what we all make."
Later update:
"Since originally writing this blog entry in 2021, we have increased our salary a few times, and it now stands at $207,264. We have also added some sales positions that have variable compensation, consisting of a lower base salary and a commission component."
In many states, including CA, individuals can post a bond instead of carrying insurance. Companies with fleets of vehicles can also self-insure. In both cases the car owner is liable to pay any damages that insurance would normally pay.
When I was much younger, I worked for a couple companies that had (what I would consider) large fleets of vehicles, and they all were insured through an insurance company. I guess I just assumed that's how it was. I wasn't aware self-insuring was a possibility. Thanks.
While I'm not sure of the specifics for car insurance.
For health care, a lot of large companies technically have say Anthem or whatever but the company pays out all of the claims and it's just administered by Anthem. So you may have seen a similar thing where all claims were handled by say Geico but it's not Geico's pot of money paying out claims.
Self-driving is probably still new enough that insurance companies wouldn't have good actuarial data to properly price the risks, so they'd just have to charge exorbitant rates.
It has been classic lore that Bill Gates couldn't get anyone to insure him after his younger years (see classic mugshot photo used as the silhouette) so he had to self insure. Not sure if completely true but I remember the stories.
valkey was introduced as an opt-in alternative to Redis as an implementation choice for specific products offered by the the major cloud providers approximately 9 months ago. Generally valkey is shown as a preview or beta or whatever option. Nobody has performed any kind of automatic or default transition from Redis to valkey for existing customers.
My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident.
>My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident.
I have no idea what the actual stats are. But no, I don't find your "statistically 0%" to be self-evident, especially in light of the other comments and links in this thread, and what I've heard elsewhere.
I was hoping, since you presented it so confidently, that you had something more than "trust me". In another comment you say you have evidence of marketshare, maybe you could post that?
I recently moved on to a new company, but my prior company had a pretty large scale Elasticache Redis deployment in production (over 50 large clusters in us-east-1), and were in the middle of a complete migration to Valkey due cost savings, improved performance, and reduction in memory usage.
We've already completed migrating several large production clusters and I can confidently say that the migration had been pretty smooth and seamless.
Valkey is certainly production ready (at least on AWS it is). The team is looking forward to expedite and complete the migration
>a JetBrains employee said that reviews were removed because they mentioned issues that had since been solved
That shouldn't be considered a valid reason to remove a review. I could maybe understand down-weighting reviews as they age and as issues are resolved, but as a potential buyer of some product/service/whatever, knowing that something was released with a bunch of issues (even if now solved) is a valuable signal. Preferably, they would reply to reviews and say "XYZ was addressed in update ABC" or something.
Nuking reviews is a valuable signal as well, I guess. Just not in the way that they hope. Knowing that they've done that has (further) lowered my impression of them.
Yes, it's a terrible excuse, and it's concerning that they think it's a good one. I highly doubt that they make a habit of fielding requests from plugin authors to nuke outdated reviews: you simply can't scale the verification that would require to do honestly. If they don't offer this as an option to others then this move is wrong both for the reasons you give and because they're claiming a privilege in their app store that they won't afford to their competition.
I don't think that they think it is a good one. It was just the best excuse they could come up with after being caught. The "good idea" was to remove the reviews without anybody noticing.
I wonder if they remove reviews that complain about bugs that were resolved (at least according to the plugin author) for all other plugins that aren’t theirs… Do they? … yeah I thought so.
Ive seen plenty of reviews in app stores where the vendor responds to negative reviews and confirms when the issue described in the review was fixed. Is JetBrains also removing positive reviews that mention features that have been discontinued?
They should attach a YouTrack issues to reviews, which would automatically show that the issue has been fixed. Their YouTrack integration is pretty deep elsewhere. Still doesn't solve the problem of the average score, though.
My comment complaining about it being bundled and enabled by default, with no way to uninstall, only disabled. They gave me the same excuse, but those "features" are still exactly the same as they were then.
It's a bad policy even if it's not anti-competitive. At the absolute bare minimum, they should also be removing every positive review that mentions any feature that has been changed since the review was written. Then, once they're all out of reviews that actually mention the software in any way, they can institute a sensible policy of not deleting reviews.
Normally I'd agree but this is a project that has changed significantly over a verey short period of time. Those reviews may simply not be relevant anymore. I trust that JetBrains going forward will simply respond to the reviews, not remove them.
They should have responded to them in the first place, not removed them, and state that the issue has been fixed and invite the commenter to try again. I wouldn’t trust them to not remove reviews until they start not doing it.
And then the reviews would not have been changed by their authors anyway, because that's not something people typically do. So you still have a bunch of negative reviews for issues that have long been fixed. And that's not fair. If you handle critic and improve, then thats a positive thing that should not be punished by an obsolete negative review.
This is kind of the reality of ratings online: you have to accept that someone could leave a bad review about something that you’ve fixed, or even arbitrary. In general if you’re doing a good job the positive reviews will eventually counter the bad ones. It’s arguably not fair but 1. in this case maybe they should have put more care into the initial release, and 2. I, not the company, would rather be the one to judge the review and the response because I don’t have an incentive to hide negative things about the product.
> And then the reviews would not have been changed by their authors anyway, because that's not something people typically do. So you still have a bunch of negative reviews for issues that have long been fixed. And that's not fair.
That is more fair than Jetbrains removing other people's negative reviews unilaterally, especially when it remains to be seen whether Jetbrains actually fixed the issues.
Legally, Jetbrains is allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of reviews on their own site. Morally, they should not act unilaterally, and should gain customer approval before harming customers.
> If you handle critic and improve
You are assuming they improved. With the reviews deleted, there is no way to know for sure, they could just as easily have gotten worse and hidden it by deleting the review. That's why you don't delete the review.
The proper move here would indeed be to post a reply, and have a public conversation. Readers of reviews can then read the reply, and either trust them at their word that they fixed it with no bugs or other mistakes, or test for themselves.
tl;dr: the reviewer, not the biased company being reviewed, is the judge of whether the issues described in the review have been addressed / fixed / made irrelevant. YES, there may be downsides to this, but they are not as bad as the downsides of the alternative (company deletes arbitrary reviews about themselves for arbitrary reasons with no oversight).
Looks interesting, and I'll be diving into it a bit deeper, but I just wanted to mention that this quote:
"even non-experts can guarantee the security of their cloud environments"
Even though I understand that this is part of a marketing blurb, not a literal guarantee, it was an immediate yellow-flag for me. No tool can possibly guarantee the security of my cloud environment, so please don't imply/say your tool can. It reminds me of shady VPN companies guaranteeing my security by providing me with "military-grade encryption".
To be abundantly clear, I am not saying that this product is shady or anything -- I have not had the time to evaluate it in the depth needed -- but statements like that make the rest of the pitch an uphill battle. For me, at least.
we provide yaml predefined rules based on CIS benchmark. We will try to upgrade public rules offer to upgrade the security of your cloud environment.
maybe this is too much marketing to explain we can check all settings we want in all cloud providers.
All the parameters of cloud providers are json like so you can check it different operators and mix them.
again we'll be available on slack to discuss further.
I have the same concerns on this language but I’m wondering if there might be a slight language barrier issue if English isn’t their first language. They may have meant to use a word like “certify” which I could see translating to “guarantee”. (Pure conjecture based on the fact it sounds like they’re France-based)
"Judge scorches Trump admin for stonewalling in Abrego Garcia deportation case" is just one recent headline.
From my outside perspective, your checks and balances do not appear to be working. If they do work, I can't help but wonder what is taking so long.