This seems like a strange combination of proposals:
1) PUT, PATCH, and DELETE methods: Logical and obvious extension, no extra syntax, but easy to get around today by just using POST for everything.
2) Buttons actions without forms: Just syntax nicety to avoid a single form tag, unconsequential and just adds implementation complexity.
3) Partial page replacement: Would completely revolutionize js-free html capabilities, but the draft is unfinished..
It would seem to me that the author should have just made the thrid proposal, and not wrapped it in a project of two much less consequential proposals?
the execution model of cargo-nextest makes my test suite extremely slow to run - Most of my tests rely on postgres. Since cargo-nextest uses a separate process per test, there is no efficient way to share the connection pool.
Its a bit confusing to claim that "The things your current stack can't give you because it doesn't own the DAG" and use DataBricks as your example: DataBricks includes jobs and pipelines, so it very much owns the DAG, no?
Fair point. Databricks owns a scheduling DAG (Workflows, DLT). What I meant by "owns the DAG" is the semantic DAG: model-to-model dependencies with column-level types that the compiler builds.
Workflows knows task A runs before task B. Rocky knows `dim_customer.email` flows from `raw_users.email_address` through three CTEs in `stg_customers`. Different layer, same word.
this is not big news in dk, it will be up again soon - i dont know of any mitid services that are life-or-death enough to have people panicing about an hours downtime
This is a tech site, not a news site. Threads posted here are rarely if ever "big news" nor is that the point.
The topic is an opener to discuss MitID, electronic ID's in general, the protocols behind them, what happens when they fail, privacy, societies reliance on them or something similar.
Really FAANG can stop a solar-storm? A war on infrastructure?
Remember that your website not just needs running computers but energy too, and a net that brings that information to the peoples, and those peoples devices need power too.
Just look at the Berlin outage where people had to go to hotpots with generators to load the phone:
nah, i generally agree with you on single points of failure, i just don't agree that it would go on as long as 2 weeks. 24-48 hours i can believe, but at the absolute worst case I'd also expect anyone with minimal competence to have a plan to spin things up from the latest offsite backup somewhere else. (minimal competence is a big statement though). Even redundant setups can go down altogether from a fatfinger or automation gone wrong (see almost any outage from FAANG)
> stop a solar-storm
never heard of those taking out a data center, but i'm not highly educated on that one.
> A war on infrastructure
government datacenter will be first in line for fuel, generators, etc. A destroyed gov. datacenter would be the start of much more serious things to worry about.
> Just look at the Berlin outage where people had to go to hotpots
yeah, this one _is_ a little embarassing, but people who have to go to hotspots != datacenters
Software engineering is not engineering. No need to pretend that it should be. We dont rebuild a bridge 3 times before we get it right, but in SE thats a pretty good approach
Theoretically correct, but worse is better - consider how many things we could have asked of C or javascript before they become standards.. Practically, a spec is something to prioritise alongside all the other things we wish for
