I still use Fiddler Classic, at least once a week when I need to dig-in on a problem. It occasionally gets an update though I can't remember the last time it did.
It's so powerful, especially with the JScript scripting language. Such a powerful tool.
In GitHub we use an OIDC token to access some AWS resources. Locally I need to populate tokens etc and so I have an `if: ${{ACT}}` and a not condition to populate it.
Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.
Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.
The title should probably be "Forcing Windows to load a specific URL in a Edge" as the article only talks about Windows and Edge specifically.
Overall I think you can expect the responses this got based on the author talking about "The purpose of this URL scheme is to enable Windows and cooperating applications to invoke particular user-experiences in the Edge browser" while as a Windows user, the only time I hit this "feature" is when I click on a link and expect it to open in Firefox (my selected default browser) but instead for some stupid reason it uses Edge regardless.
Surely this will be used against Microsoft in some future anti-trust suit to show how Microsoft still tries to get rid of their competition by ignoring user choice.
Isn't it's purpose merely to provide a way to query a git repo's commit history? It helps answer questions like "who has the most commits in the codebase?" and "what times of the day are commits most active?". I don't think it's meant to be anything more than that.
I find it amusing that in the same article it talks about how Spirit is struggling to turn a profit, and the reasoning for the justice department saying it a merger is anticompetitive is because it would remove the pressure that Spirit places upon the other airlines because of its lower prices.
Here's a thought. Maybe there's a reason Spirit is struggling to turn a profit. Maybe their prices are too low.
Sounds to me like the pressure from Spirit on the other airlines to lower prices won't last long anyway. If not a merger they probably can't survive as a business with their low prices.
As others have said, and I would agree, that title isn't misleading as any day is "user data" and your argument revolves around the semantics of what "personal data" is (or isn't).
Beyond that I think it's fair for folks using Sentry to be disappointed in the decision. It's very hard to classify data types to be excluded and much easier to go down the "inclusion" route. But in this case Sentry can later argue that, whoops, these data were incorrectly classified because the user interpreted our Rube Goldberg machine incorrectly. Par for the course with respect to anti-patterns.
This article seems to be coming from a perspective that Microsoft somehow poached Sam and team. After looking at the events of the weekend, it's clear to me that the OpenAI board is solely responsible for the events that conspired. I imagine the timeline of events will be studied in the future as an example of how not to fire your CEO.
Yeah, and a plausible explanation for everything is that the board realized that they were beholden to MS, and this was a last ditch effort to claw back some power before they were de facto just the MS AI division.
Maybe the board thought they could get some concessions from Altman/MS by playing hardball, and it just backfired on them. Or maybe they already knew that it was too late, and that by antagonizing MS and imploding OpenAI they might shake "something" unexpected loose to their own benefit.
Microsoft gave Sam and the for-profit arm of OpenAI a paved road towards a much larger GPU supply and access to other resources, much quicker than OpenAI could procure naturally. This allows the for-profit arm of OpenAI to grow much faster, albeit with more directional influence from an external entity that does not have a position on the board. Microsoft's investment, significantly motivated by business interests, rather than philanthropy, creates tension in OpenAI. The for-profit arm is being tugged in two directions, one that wants to capitalize and recoup investments at the cost of less risk assessment of the impact of AI, and the other direction that wants a slower, more guided approach towards building an approach to AI more focused on ethics, sustainability and improving the human condition.
The fact that Microsoft might not have directly recruited Sam and his team is less significant in light of their promise of substantial growth, which ultimately swayed Sam's decision, whether he consciously realizes this or not. This now leads to him misrepresenting information to the board, leading to his removal. This scenario humorously mirrors a common personal dilemma: choosing between financial gain and leading a meaningful, sustainable life. Sam's choice is hyperbolically likened to 'selling one's soul to the devil', reflecting this paradox.
> I imagine the timeline of events will be studied in the future as an example of how not to fire your CEO.
Studied by who? It is the board of a non-profit company that doesn't have "maximize shareholders profits" as reason to exist.
This will be studied as one more capitalist takeover. I hope it somehow goes bad for Microsoft.
Everyone that keeps repeating this should read the Finn newspapers of the time, regarding how Nokia board decided to get Elop, and then give him a contract with a bonus clause in case he managed to sell Nokia Mobile business unit.
"Nokia chief executive Stephen Elop is catching heat today in Finland after the country’s biggest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, reported that Elop was guaranteed a $25 million payment if he was able to sell Nokia’s cellphone business."
Besides the obvious difference in execution engine which is explained in the link, I noticed the same thing and after doing some research, I found out that Temporal cofounder Samar Abbas was the creator of Amazon Flow Framework in 2009 and then the creator of the Azure Durable Task Framework in 2014, then moved on to Uber and co-created Candence with Maxim Fateev before they both eventually founded Temporal in 2019. https://www.temporal.io/about
