IIRC, they were doing things like patching bittorrent to prefer closer IP's to pull from during their deploys. So it would roll through their network from 1 side to the other without just completely saturating the entire network.
But the point still remains, they had challenges to solve, but they were also simple, which made it possible TO solve those challenges.
I would be completely happy if IOS by default did not allow all the things it doesn't allow, but you could add a setting to allow 3rd party app stores with a list that apple curated themselves (similar to search engine preferences in a browser).
Apple can make it all scary about how the apps on the 3rd party applications could be doing more nefarious things. I would even be ok with apple having the ability to simply refuse to install specific apps from these 3rd party app stores for things that are egregious violations of ethics.
but I've just read too many stories about Apple rejecting apps over very innocuous things, and apple rejecting smaller apps but allowing the same thing in larger apps (anti-competitive).
When I misunderstand titles and then realize my mistake I don't start complaining about it.
Can it be read either way? Yes. Does it really matter? No. Language is often ambiguous without context.
But even with that, it really isn't confusing. The ones who don't know who Larry Flint are may choose not to click on it whether they take the word Hustler as a verb or a noun. And the ones who do click will be disabused of their potential confusion almost immediately.
> Someone can believe in free speech while choosing to censor their own platform
No, someone can __CLAIM__ to believe in free speech, but if they're not allowing it on their own platform then they really don't. There's a reason why the adage "actions speak louder than words" exists.
That's odd, given that literally every platform I've seen proclaimed as pro free-speech moderates content to some degree or another, which implies no platform owner believes in free speech. And given that some editorial decisions must have been made WRT Hustler at some point (they didn't publish literally everything and anything,) I guess Larry Flynt never really believed in free speech either.
It has the same concurrency semantics w/r/t IO as any other language that isn't using an event based runtime. If you wrote your app in C and used a single thread you'd have the exact same issue.
yeah, Heroku infamously had a really hard time getting Ruby to scale well.
Ruby traded safety (GIL) for absolutely speed, although it should be noted that Ruby's C interfaces do allow you to op out of the GIL, which means if speed is absolutely paramount you can write a Ruby C extension to opt out of it.
I've done it in the past, but OTOH if you're to that point maybe Ruby no longer makes sense.
Not really, lots of folks were using mercurial with BitBucket which didn't support Git at the time. Bazaar and Launchpad were also pretty common. I remember at one point around 2009-2010 I was semi-regularly using CVS, Subversion, Mercurial, Bazaar and Git.
> I'd say about 90% or so of the code I look at where someone is building raw SQL queries has trivial SQL injections in it.
Just parameterize the query and you're done. If someone isn't doing so in 2020 they're either working on a very old system or they're not doing it right.
SQL injection is just not a reason to avoid raw SQL.
One of the reasons I love Dapper.net is because it allows me to use raw SQL and helps solve the only pain point I have with raw SQL, dynamically building queries.
But the point still remains, they had challenges to solve, but they were also simple, which made it possible TO solve those challenges.