Cloudflare Tunnels only support exposing what mostly amounts to HTTP-based services. If you're using other protocols for e.g. a game server, or something else, it won't fly unless you are also running the WARP client locally.
Even within HTTP services, (a) your TLS will not be end to end, so you have to be happy for Cloudflare to see your data and (b) they don't like you to use up all their bandwidth with media streaming or other large files. Tunnel is a great service but there are certainly reasons not to use it.
I agree with a lot of the other comments regarding the accuracy of the substitutions suggested here. Having said that, I do think 'very' is overused in daily conversational English. I've found myself replacing it with 'quite' more often now, just for personal taste.
After I went more free style I got my own insurance. Then I usually do not go with any employee health plan, it changes yearly anyways and adds friction to changing jobs/contracts. If more people did this we could solve this.
It does suck that when you are on your own you have to either join a group or be rated at the individual/family level. If we fixed grouping in health insurance this would be much better. Grouping like how Medicare does it across all private insurance would be much better.
The great thing about not taking work insurance is no extra cost, can easily go from contract to contract or full time for a while, and with your own company it can be expensed. The only downside is the part work would pay for, however you don't get any say in the type of insurance or what companies. You can ask for a small bump in pay to help cover it.
Companies would prefer not to have to deal with health insurance as it is a competitive weight in the US. Private insurance and public options, both separated from the employer is the way to go.
We don't get our home/auto/life insurance from work, why do we get the most personal type of insurance, health, from employers. Not only that healthcare bound to the job leads to all sorts of problems, ageism, harder to change jobs, harder to compete with other countries and more.
If developers starting doing this more, we alone could change the legacy employer/healthcare coupled system.
It's a pretty common mutation that severely inhibits (depending on how many of the genes are mutated) methylation of folate in the liver. This is an important source of methyl groups for chemical processes, such as those that include NAD.
There's plenty more on Google, including the interaction between an MTHFR mutation and NAD supplementation.
Regarding guns, the dissent argues that “well-regulated” and “militia” are key components of the text. The applicants for concealed carry were not part of a militia, and the current court doesn’t seem to acknowledge the “well-regulated” piece exists at all.
With regard to abortion, the constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, which is closely linked to bodily autonomy. The argument being that there is constitutionally no legal way for the government to involve itself in your personal health decisions. There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.
Except there isn't a explicit right to privacy either in the constitution or the bill of rights. Which is why RBG always argued that Roe v. Wade was poorly decided.
Should there be? I think this is an evolving question that would settle a number of ambiguities in the law.
If one were to die tomorrow without being an organ donor, the state still cannot compel one to give up their organs, even if it would save lives. Why should a woman’s body have less autonomy than a corpse?
On the other hand, I don’t think many people would support 39-week abortions either, absent some explicit medical necessity. At some point, which is inherently a gradient, our legal system has to afford protection to what is a viable person.
Americans have a tendency to go for the most extreme positions on everything and I think the court reversing Roe is an incredibly shortsighted decision that will cost it decades of legitimacy. The institution is more damaged now than possibly ever. Even the Chief Justice had wanted to uphold Mississippi’s law but preserve Roe, which would’ve been a much better solution than where we are today.
I've seen it claimed that "well-regulated" in 1789 meant "well-equipped". Think of what a "regular" and "irregular" meant then (and kinda still means now). A "regular" was a soldier in an army. An "irregular" was a civilian joining the fight. I don't know if it is true that "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped", but it makes sense that it might have.
> There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.
My interpretation of that ideology is that liberals want the government to protect public health by restricting personal freedom of participation in certain aspects of the public sphere by those who choose not to be vaccinated, and conservatives want to put their own personal choices above the public health by allowing them to do without restriction all the things they did before the pandemic regardless of their vaccination status. There was never serious debate about blanket compelling of vaccination.
I really empathise with the mother in this situation, it really does sound awful.
I’m currently going through something similar, but on the opposite side of the fence. The courts have generally found in my favor because I’ve kept meticulous evidence of my wife’s abuse and how she involved the children. If it weren’t for this system, my life would be destroyed.
What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
The experience has made me truly believe something is fundamentally broken in our society with how we raise children. It takes a village, yet the western world runs on a two parent system that inherently creates conflict when it comes to career opportunity and so much more. It can’t be a coincidence that the divorce rate is so high.
> What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
There was a man who had to take his dead wife's urn into school because they repeatedly insisted on talking to "the child's mother".
My kid's medical records are literally attached to my wife's medical records - I have to login with her username and password to view after visit summaries etc.
In effect, child related institutions like schools and family doctors systematically treat fathers as second class parents.
And then family courts look at things like involvement with schools and doctors to decide who gets custody - as if those institutions weren't biased against fathers in the first place!
We should have laws to (1) prevent discrimination against fathers by all these institutions (2) order courts to take into account that discrimination when determining custody to avoid perpetuating the existing bias.
(And if you agree these should be laws - please call your legislators and tell them! Nothing will change if people don't tell their elected representatives how they feel about these issues.)
"My kid's medical records are literally attached to my wife's medical records - I have to login with her username and password to view after visit summaries etc"
Some of these decisions are in the hands of software teams. Ask out loud in a team meeting about supporting other family structures: single parents, orphans, same-sex couples, grandparent-as-guardians, etc. "The MVP works for most of our users" isn't good enough.
It's likely that the generalized solution is overall simpler too even if you won't get to use an easy label like "mother" on the form.
>I’m currently going through something similar, but on the opposite side of the fence. The courts have generally found in my favor because I’ve kept meticulous evidence of my wife’s abuse and how she involved the children. If it weren’t for this system, my life would be destroyed.
>What can possibly be done to make the system more equitable?
A lot could be done to fix the root problem by educating young people on the nature of abusive relationships, and what the signs and red flags they should look out for are, so we don't end up with so many people in such situations. Imagine if the government treated it like an anti-smoking campaign, showing scenes of people tolerating and excusing a bit of bad behaviour from a new partner, then cutting to a few years in future when they're a nervous wreck and their partner is doing all kinds of horrible things to them.
Arguably it's one of the most important things in life, knowing how to avoid abusive relationships, but there's absolutely zero education on it. In some cases the entertainment media even (inadvertently?) tries to normalise such abusive behaviours.
> Imagine if the government treated it like an anti-smoking campaign
Smoking is binary: you know if you are smoking or not, and other's do too. An 'abusive relationship' is not binary, and is laden with evaluative meaning, subjective, contextual, differing from culture to culture.
Perhaps most importantly such terms are subject to concept creep due to prevalence changes in society. This is not something people put much consideration in to, but the trade-off in educating people (a good thing) is the slow pathologising of every aspect of healthy human relationships. Which, incidentally, is what this article is about.
It takes a village, yet the western world runs on a two parent system that inherently creates conflict...
This isn't the only drawback of capitalism as we practice it. While it might not have featured much modern comfort, the traditional village also wasn't relentlessly commercial, relentlessly measured. There was some space for humans to live as they would, without accounting for every square inch of real estate and minute of life. (i.e., a child who wanted to stay somewhere else in the village than her parent's hut for a few weeks simply would have done that) Over time, these slack areas have been eliminated. Everything must be legible to the bean counters. What isn't, is made a crime against shareholders or taxpayers or security or democracy or property values or whatever. Of course, slack areas are the only source of resilience humans have. We just don't allow ourselves to think of that. "It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism."
Some will dismiss this as theorizing about conspiracies. The whole "conspiracy theory" meme is a distraction. Quasi-rational actors don't require coordination to respond identically to identical incentives. In general, that's how society has functioned, for millennia. The capitalist "innovation" is to tie more and more individual incentives to the preferences of capital. Capital cannot tolerate a village.
Please don't idealize the mythical village. Too many people do, because they are distant enough (in time and space) that they view premodern life as some sort of Golden Age paradise.
My grandmother (1926-2016) grew up in a remote eastern Slovak village well before it acquired electricity and other perks of modern life. You cannot get much more traditional than that.
Wealth and poverty still played a role, it does everywhere. The village wasn't "relentlessly measured", but it was relentlessly judgmental and hierarchical. You couldn't do shit if the most powerful people mistreated you. And you carried an unshakeable burden of your ancestry with you. If your mother was considered a "witch" (seriously) or a "slut", your place on the village pecking order was somewhere down below.
Plenty of people escaped traditional villages to get rid of this burden. Urban anonymity has some positives. Capitalism can be cruel, but at least it is not utterly rigid. Often, you can make money somehow - perhaps not millions, but enough not to be a pauper. But in a traditional, closed village, you could never shake off the stigma of a "slut's daughter" etc. If you didn't want be disdained forever, you had to move out, end of story.
My understanding is that California’s language is pretty unambiguous that businesses are responsible for all work expenses. I think on the legal merits the engineer may ultimately prevail, but I just don’t see how this is a battle worth fighting considering the massive savings that work from home already provides. It’s likely a lawsuit like this could also damage one’s long-term career prospects.
It will be interesting to see whether the courts see a difference between incremental expenses vs things the employee was already purchasing (e.g. internet vs electricity)
Yeah whether the employee is right or not I really don't see the logic in a senior engineer suing their employer for $50/mo in costs.
In the absolute best case, this will become a class action lawsuit. All ~4000 employees will get a couple thousand dollars as reimbursement. Lawyers will make a few million. Amazon will find the money from under some couch cushion. And then they will allocate a portion of everyone's salary to "WFH expenses" to be in the clear legally. Meanwhile the plaintiff's name will be all over the news and their future job prospects will take a huge hit.
The bigger cost would be a rent equivalent on a home office. That's probably low five figures annually.
But I don't agree with the overall conclusion. Ultimately the cost of an employee boils down to one number. If they have to pay 15k for home office rent then salary will just be 15k less.
I agree with you generally but there’s also the question of whether an expense is reasonable. Should you be expected to put a desk in your bedroom and have that be sufficient? I live in New York and have an extra bedroom for my office, should my employer be forced to pay for that instead?
Not really. If the market clearing price was X before there's no reason it will change from X. The compensation will just in the form of Y rent + (X - Y) salary
Just as an fyi, inside Amazon's virtual network topology, there is no such thing as layer 2, and thus, no broadcast topology. Normally you'd be 100% correct in seeking to limit that bandwidth, but in Amazon everything works just a little differently.
> State officials also revealed that the employee who was terminated on Friday “has performance issues,” and had confused drills with real-world events in at least two previous incidents. The report said colleagues had complained about such issues in the past.
Yeah, we don't know the whole story. It's not impossible that this is a situation involving both systemic flaws and someone who is just intractably and unapologetically incompetent -- for instance, someone who has habitually browsed non-work-related websites and been warned against doing so, but the harm of the distraction was never actually a danger until this fake alert incident.
For me, what partially redeems this employee's firing is that the head administrator was also terminated. If this "button-pusher" deserves to be punished for incompetence, then whoever thought it was OK to have such an incompetent person pushing the button also deserves to be punished.
I admittedly don't know enough about the underlying cryptography to have an educated opinion, but it seems like they put some due diligence into determining it still provided value.
1Password uses TLS, and SRP inside TLS. If TLS is broken as in Cloudbleed, SRP hopefully still protects the channel - at least against non-active attacks such as Cloudbleed. The security still ultimately relies on TLS. Having not read the document fully, I think those would be against initial registration or in an active MITM allowing password-guessing. I'm looking at page 52 of https://1password.com/teams/white-paper/1Password%20for%20Te....
reply