Hmmm I've recently been evaluating https://www.kysely.dev after finding that Prisma can't support foreign data warehousing (FDW) with Postgres.
I don't really know enough about Kysely yet to make an informed opinion between those two. If you know more than me, can you give me your take??
Edit: Hmmm perhaps based on the primary author's other repos (https://github.com/mythz) it looks like they're a fan of C#. Perhaps it's the LINQ-like syntax that separates them the most.
Right, it's effectively a spiritual port of our C# LINQ OrmLite library [1].
I've been using a lot of bun:sqlite [2] lately which has an amazing DX and lets you create lots of stand-alone .ts scripts (i.e. without deps) to access SQLite DB's. The only issue is that I didn't want all my SQL queries to be coupled to a single driver, so I created litdb to provide a RDBMS-agnostic API + Query Builders so all my queries could easily be run on different DBs.
TypeScript has an amazingly powerful type system which let me build the ideal abstraction I wanted where I could use expressive SQL Expressions but still have typed references to our App's classes (tables) / properties (columns) to benefit from static analysis/intelli-sense during development whilst making it safe to refactor / find references / etc.
Things that are hard/impossible in C# is easy in TypeScript, e.g. the QueryBuilders lets you have a variable number of generic args which isn't possible in C# also it was much easier to support composable queries [3] than trying to combine multiple LINQ queries with shared references.
Have you looked at FolioHD? It's geared towards photographers and artistic types that want a really nice portfolio website.
Paying an amount that is just-above-market-rate for a domain and not needing to understand how to configure DNS for someone non-technical seems like an absolutely worth-while reseller case.
If you want to be an artist then control of your intellectual property is probably a topic you care a great deal about.
Your domain and how people reach you is probably the first lever. If you are giving that up happily, I assume renting without the option to own or leasing a car is a sensible business model to you and you are just experimenting without any real intention of starting.
The effort and time in becoming an artist outweighs by at least two or three orders of magnitude the time it would take to read an article and setup a domain. Namecheap, GoDaddy, all these registrar's do it for you.
Imagine having 900 houses and renting them out to a community of like minded folks.
Whether it is at cost or slightly above, it is "rent seeking" in the sense they own, you borrow.
From my *personal* experience, the target audience, to a large degree, doesn't care at all about owning domains, websites or servers. They want something that just works and the less they have to deal with technology, the better. In that sense, a reasonable and ethical service where you own nothing is much better than one that preys on you and you still own nothing.
People want the thing whose functioning they are largely ignorant of to just be solved by someone else already, news at eleven.
It is, I feel, the responsibility of those who do know how these things work (e.g. us) to point out which things are important and which are safely dumped onto someone else. In this case, one’s identity on the ’net is very important, and something one should absolutely not put into position to be held for ransom later by being bundled with other services.
Do rent a hosting service, absolutely. (Do not trust it to hold the only copy of your data or metadata or social graph, but that’s usually something photographers understand implicitly, unlike e.g. writers.) Website hosting, DNS hosting, autoupload, social crossposts, whatever, buy all of that stuff as a bundle if you want—your risk threshold for redoing all of that after a hostile acquisition of your hoster is your own. But do not, under any circumstances, let them hold your identity at the same time. On the ’net, that’s your domain registration.
You own the domain. You can take it and they can't withhold it.
The registrar is already doing what this site is doing. I don't have a problem with a site making it easy to setup. It's the site holding a thousand website domains.
What you are asking for is different.
If FolioHD said:
Have a domain in mind that you'd like to use? Type it here and we'll do all the work setting that up.
What they are actually doing is:
We've bought these 900~ domains and we are holding them. Pick one you'd like and we'll set it up.
Hear hear. Everyone arguing against this seems to want the permanent, forever solution. There isn't one. This isn't software - it's reducing harm over time as best we can, and it's a fight that will take approximately the rest of human time.
The argument that we created a bioweapon is like... and? We also have nerve agents and gas and nukes. It's like everyone posting here exists in some other reality where they never talked to another human in a grocery store. We all get along as best we can.
i would pay so much money to never hear another one of the trite reddit retorts around russian bots as soon as someone hears something they disagree with
It's odd when certain topics - vaccines being one of them - come in with a flurry of comments when it isn't even highly upvoted. Especially when you have some drivel as the top comment saying Gates flew on the "lolita express" and some link to Prince Phillip. Ooookay? What about the article?
i don't disagree that bots/bad actors are a problem. but it's futile to call everyone a bot since it shuts down literally all discussion. at this point just accept that the internet is the wild west and act with discretion. it helps when you dissect an idea based only on the idea and not the operator behind it. that's how i've changed my internet usage and it's helped immensely. most of the time it's obvious since bots are dumb or generally made by dumb people. but the smarter more intricate bad actors that argue in bad faith in lieu of being paid or what have you, you'll simply never tell apart since they're just humans. at that point all you have left is your wits and i prefer to train my wits on all kinds of ideas thrown my way and accept the fact that there are a lot of types of opinions in the US (where i live) and that it doesn't mean the person making a point of contention is a bot.
Strong agree. I'll tell you the other reason not cited: it slows down organizations. Doing things right to avoid the (seemingly) small chance at being massively wrong is the inverse of the bet that doing many different things quickly has a small chance at a massive payout.
Let's say I'm an executive and I think there's a 1% chance of a breach that costs me 100x and a 1% chance of a 100x payout on every project.
I have 2 projects that each make $X. Let's say $X is $1000.
1 project will go from $X to $X/100 based on breach, so it's now worth $10.
1 project will go from $X to $X*100. It's now worth $100,000.
I went from making $2000 to $99,990.
This goes back to the argument about fines. They aren't NEARLY severe enough. If I'm an executive at a big company, I may enforce greater security on the "cash cow" projects (e.g. ad revenue and GSuite at Google [but not the Pixel or GCloud], AWS and Retail at Amazon [but not Alexa, Kindle, etc]) but the rest? I need to get ANOTHER cash cow. If my service that's only netting me $1M/year goes to $0, and I needed a service that would make $1B, I literally do not care.
If adding in-depth security to the $1M/year project makes delivery 2x slower, I've now spent 2x on something that probably wasn't even worth it. This is a game of stats; businesses and features as cattle not pets. I'd rather have 2 projects and another dice roll than 1 project that's just "meh".
That's not how I operate, but if you're playing this game as an executive, that's the most logical outcome.
Question for people that build hacks: given how robust this open-source anti-cheat is, does building the cheat give more reward than playing the game? It seems like it would take a ton of hours to be effective..
I've built hacks to undermine recurring payment structures in games. It has very little to do with cheating, and everything to do with fighting a corporate trend that I would like to see abolished in games.
Gaming companies care far more about these kind of hacks, but frequently lump them into the "cheating" category for better optics.
There is huge money in making cheats and this one seems to operate in userspace only. Most cheats and anti-cheats these days are running in lower rings (kernel or device driver)
I believe there is also hardware cheats but I'm not sure how common those are. EDIT: See "DMA cheats" or "DMA cards"
Recent keyboard cheats (ie minimising the learning curve in seamlessly changing direction when strafing) are nothing, and not really what anyone means by hardware cheats.
What is meant are PCIe hardware devices that can use DMA to read and write data without being detected by software processes at all.
They've been around for quite a while (5+ years?), but I doubt they'll ever get mainstream adoption.
If these things get mainstream adoption their PCI IDs just get blacklisted (they do need to register with the system first), or IOMMU configuration will be yet another thing to fingerprint. IIRC, the host CPU has to allow the "evil" PCIe device access to memory, or is that just something that Thunderbolt chips implemented after malware authors used this for insta-unlocks?
So what, as soon as these things become mainstream cheating targets, anticheat vendors will force (or "strongly suggest") to hardware manufacturers that every piece of hardware has to have some sort of uncloneable TPM-style module to verify authenticity.
They already are in many games where good undetectable cheats are 100$ monthly subscriptions. Anticheat vendors don't have enough pull to pull that off, Microsoft maybe could but most of their effort goes into protections against advesaries other than the computers owner.
In this instance one of the things they do is ignore keypresses at certain times
> Razer and Wooting’s SOCD features both let players automate switching strafe directions without having to learn the skill. Normally, to switch strafe directions in a first-person shooter, you have to fully release one key before pressing the other. If both are pressed, they cancel each other, and you stand there for a moment until you release one of the keys. SOCD means you don’t need to release a key and you can rapidly tap the A or D key to counter-strafe with little to no effort. [1]
Huh. That seems like such a weird, minor advantage to attempt to ban. I expect most anyone playing FPS would pick this up naturally.
Also seems impossible to ban given the ubiquity of custom keyboards running something like QMK. Those run user code and could send a fake vendor id to the host.
> Huh. That seems like such a weird, minor advantage to attempt to ban. I expect most anyone playing FPS would pick this up naturally.
With a regular keyboard its very possible for a person to not release one key before pressing the other in a tense situation when they have less than 1 second to react. For example even a professional baseball player making millions of dollars can drop a routine fly ball.
It’s actually less sophisticated - it’s merely the choice of what key input is reported when two keys are physically in the down position, simultaneously.
“Report last key that was activated” means that rapidly switching/alternating between, say, A and D to switch movement directions is a matter of just pressing the next key instead of coordinating the lifting of the other key.
AFAIK this has existed as an autohotkey script for a long time, but it’s so simple a legitimate hardware implementation detail can be another vector, and wouldn’t fit in the “unauthorized software” definition of cheating so needed a separate callout.
Essentially the keyboards have software that will allow the user to override keypresses at inhuman speeds. This allows users to switch left/right direction extremely fast, which is very relevant in CS2 due to peeking mechanics.
Specifically, if I'm holding A (moving right) then I press D (move left), in most games in I would stop since I now have both keys down. These keyboards automatically raise the A key even if you're still holding it, allowing an immediate swap of momentum.
Not really, and valve has also banned these at the macro level.
They just allow you to set them up such that when you start strafing (ie moving) in an opposite direction by pushing an opposing key (ie you're holding down "move right" -> "d", but now start holding down "move left" -> "a") that there is no overlap between the "d" and "a" being held down, as some games (CS) punish having both down at the same time. Valves idea is that minimising the time gap as you switch directions, while never having the two keys overlap as pressed, is an important learned skill that novices should not be able to do as cleanly as pros, and have said that keyboards that support this seamless transition will be banned.
Go to aliexpress. Google cheat cards. They've proliferated pretty heavily in the last couple years.
My buddy and I were actually just discussing ring 0 anti cheat circumvention and we started researching these units. Our guess is that the hardware slightly changes every iteration with updated firmware to circumvent general heuristics like HWID.
Part of me really wants to do this, put a time bomb circuit that fries the PC after x hours of use, and leak them into the supply chain. Not going to do it, too much work, but cheaters ruined sooo many hours of my life.
I wonder if there are software dev counter-parts that would build cheats just to soft-brick cheaters PCs...
I don’t know what to say. Cool project, but I would be mortified to admit to using this. Cheating in a competitive game is just griefing with self-delusion and extra steps.
You’re also going to never be able to have a professional relationship with an athlete or gamer ever again. People who have dumped thousands of hours practicing to get good at something, and you’re proud of cheating them and people like them?
Enjoy your s3 emerald skins. I’ve reported your accounts to embark.
> People who have dumped thousands of hours practicing to get good at something, and you’re proud of cheating them and people like them?
Just as a hypothetical situation - what if one had built a similar tool on their own, or used this as a foundation but trained a new model? Does it count, or are we denying this as a personal growth and limiting it strictly to playing exactly by the book?
Alternatively... What if someone has a physical condition that limits their manual dexterity? Is it different from having a physical condition that limits their eyesight and have to wear glasses?
I'm trying to draw a line. Or challenge the status quo where the existing line is drawn.
What if someone did not have the physical strength to become a champion cyclist/baseball player, but found a medicinal way to overcome their limitations and achieve peak performance in their field? We've already come to a decisive conclusion on this; steroids are banned in most sporting competitions. Just as cheats are in online games. Just because someone does not have the pure physical ability to compete at the highest level does not give them leeway to cheat.
> We've already come to a decisive conclusion on this
Have we, really?
In the professional sports there's WADA and similar agencies, that, obviously, have to push this idea really hard (and make everyone believe that everyone else thinks so, because this is how you do it in modern times). But that's because that's what's literally keeping them afloat. But they're already struggling, trying to figure out what to do those gender-to-chemicals mismatches. And as sciences and societies evolve, I suspect it's only going to get more interesting, and I have this hunch that this status quo has cracks in its foundation and will likely shatter in the future.
They also have to make sure that athletes are safe enough and don't just wreck themselves - which makes things a quite bit different. Unless we count risks of issues in some people with predisposition to toxicity, that is associated with cheat use /s (no love for those folks).
But back to the "have we" question - do people actually care about all this stuff in non-professional sports when played recreationally? (Just like video games.) I really doubt so. People just try to balance around it, fixing the matchmaking rather than players.
But - you certainly have a point - I would suggest to exclude professional scene entirely and narrow the scope strictly to recreational gaming. Pro sports and e-sports are more controversial.
It's hard for me to think of many equivalents of video game cheats to professional sports in the sense that most "cheats" for professional sports that I can think of don't "play" the sport for you. A normal everyday joe can't just wake up and start taking steroids one day and place anywhere near the top in olympic or power lifting (or even anywhere near the middle class of amateur, clean competitors who have been training for a few years). Nor can he do blood doping and hope to compete against world class cyclists. Or in any way go up against and win bouts with masters of various martial arts. In one way or another those methods of cheating still require incredible amounts of effort, training, etc. to utilize. But a video game cheats like auto aim, wall hacks, radar, or the more blatant ones like infinite health, speed hacks and the like let someone with no skill or preparation just jump in and casually outcompete even the best of the best in a way that allows for little to no opportunities to outplay them. I'd say it's less like using steroids and more like showing up to a deadlift competition with an industrial crane.
To get to the point, I think this is why less people seem to care in non professional sports if some random guy who is on performance enhancers shows up to your amateur soccer match or pick up basketball game. The gap at the amateur level between a clean amateur and cheating amateur is not so large and certainly overcomable if the clean amateur has more training.
> do people actually care about all this stuff in non-professional sports when played recreationally? (Just like video games.)
People absolutely care, because a cheater in a lobby will ruin the experience for a dozen or more people and ultimately waste their time, taking it away from their lives.
The cheater is doing it willingly and knowingly and with a full intent to cause harm - take away someone’s time which is really the only thing we have. Cheaters shiho absolutely be punished beyond just video games, not sure how exactly though (I wouldn’t trust state nor mob with that task for sure)
Video game cheats are nothing like sports cheats / steroids
A non-roided pro can still sometimes somehow beat a roided pro.
With videogames there is zero chance you can actually beat a cheater. Maybe you can score a lucky point / frag against him/her once in 100 instances, but actually beat him?
Imagine idk Mike Tyson in his prime comes up against an underdog and the underdog can teleport or has a perfect reaction time of a standard auto-aim cheat?
Not him, but why? Cheaters in multiplayer games seek a gain for themselves at the expense of everyone else playing. They provide no benefit to a community and it's not something anyone should be even remotely proud of, even if they put a significant amount of intellectual effort into doing so.
A few years ago, I used to play EFT with friends after work and putting my kids to bed quite frequently. For a group of friends living quite far apart it was one of our favorite gaming experiences as a group. But our feeling on it soured as the game was slowly but surely taken over by large amounts of cheaters in every single match we played. The developers weren't able to deal with it at all and eventually we all quit playing. There's nothing that takes the wind of your sails in gaming like sitting down to unwind for the hour or two a week of free time with your friends and just being completely unable to enjoy that time because a significant portion of the lobby is made up of selfish cheaters. I can remain friends with someone who cheats in a multiplayer game but I never play with them after finding out they did so. I don't hesitate to report accounts. There's no benefit to you as a player keeping them around unless you're somehow making money off cheat sales.
My disdain primarily comes from going out of your way to snitch on someone, regardless of why.
But in general I'm not upset with cheaters anyway. People are always going to push boundaries. It's a fact of life.
I also believe that most cheats, at least the more invasive ones, are only possible because the game was poorly designed, without cheating in mind. Instead most game companies seem to just slap a commercial anticheat product on top and hope for the best.
I see, thanks for clarifying. I guess my frustration with that viewpoint comes from a personal bias- I can't share any sympathy for reports of that nature after seeing many of my friends and my own hours "wasted" when budgeted free time that could have been lighthearted and relaxing turns into frustration, venting, anger etc. after getting repeatedly shut down by blatant cheaters (though one could say games are wasted time in and of themselves). That I paid for the game to play with friends and none of them are willing to play it anymore because of how ineffectual the developers were at dealing with the problem compounds that frustration.
I do agree that developers should put more effort into thinking about proper design and anticheat protections. But it's also a huge ask for smaller or more inexperienced studios when they have to waste time dealing with bad actors that could have been better spent on game development, and an excuse for antisocial cheaters to keep behaving poorly. People want to assume the best out of each other. In an ideal world, people who can't keep themselves from making their hobby that of making others miserable for pleasure would be the ones being punished instead of laying the blame on those naive enough to assume that everyone is good natured and cooperative.
I agree, it's not, and people should be more careful. But at the same time it's just strange to me to see someone actually trying to clean up an online community and make it more ideal labeled as "pathetic" and a "snitch," as if a cheater's right to waste other people's time and pleasure is more important and people should just accept someone bragging about acting poorly in a social context. I don't think that's very productive behavior.
The thing is they're not really going to accomplish anything. Okay the accounts were reported. Great. Good chance no one is ever going to look at it and nothing will happen. The only thing accomplished here was the original poster trying to gain brownie points for doing a good boy thing (and then bragging about it).
Btw, they definitely did not find my steam account or actually report me. Even if they did, it’s literally a free shooter. Id be on another account within minutes. Yes I’m aware of how to get around HWID/IP bans…
Glad to see that my comment caused quite the shit storm though.
> does building the cheat give more reward than playing the game?
Absolutely! At least for the kind of people who like cracking games. Think of it as a puzzle game.
Being able to play the game as a cheater is like getting the final weapon in a game where it requires completing the most challenging part. You have fun for a bit, destroying everything in your path, that's your reward, but you quickly lose interest as you have nothing interesting left to do.
Just like any software, game cheats are build once, sell as many times as you can. If a game is popular, this can be a very lucrative business. The fact that game developers will play the cat and mouse game with you to block you out only adds to this fact, as so long as you can keep up, you can get repeat customers.
Now I want to read an article about the economics of selling game hacks. I just assumed they weren't really worth the investment to build since the number of people that want to cheat seems low.
After typing that I realize this is like coming to understand just how many people are on steroids to get a physique they want. It's like nah no one takes steroids except EVERY HUGE PERSON you've ever seen, barring the extremely rare genetic outliers.
Would recommend this podcast from Darknet Diaries. [1] Not quite an article, but there is a transcript if you'd prefer to read. Includes interview with the people actually selling these hacks, and it is fascinating
yes- I have been out of the "game" for a while, but, the economics are strong. Used to sell bots that could automate tasks to get gold in various games (WoW and Runescape as examples) and we had customers that would buy 100s of licenses monthly and had factories that they'd use to farm and then sell the gold on eBay, etc.
I don't get how pwning noobs is gratifying at all. It's just griefing and for a normal sane person there's no fun in seeing other people suffer. It's like wrestling with toddlers.
Proper "cheating" is not about wreaking havoc. Although there are plenty of weird people who do weird things - but cheats are not a problem, they just enable those weirdos to do weird things.
It's just automation, all about offloading work to a machine - a principle that the whole human civilization is built upon. And developing an aid that actually helps you to improve is - surely - a personally gratifying experience. If someone has difficulties doing something the "intended" way, but can think of and implement an alternative approach to achieve the same effect - that's just humans being humans, it's as fair as life can be.
I had a similar take until about a week ago. A friend showed me his workflow with Copilot and whatever Jetbrains AI assistant is.
Use it as a tool: what if instead of opening up a new tab, searching for the API docs for the library you're trying to find a function in, find the function, re-read the parameter arguments for the 400th time, and then use it, you could just highlight a snippet and say "Paginate the results from S3 using boto3" and the code would just populate?
You have to have the clarity of thought to know what you're doing, but the time it takes to write every line for basic stuff you've done 1000x before can be greatly compressed if it's inlined with your IDE.
I think this is the move for most LLM tools: integrate it with existing tooling. An LLM for Excel for corporate bookkeepers, CPAs, etc will be great. A Word/PDF summarizer that's tuned for attorneys will also be fantastic. Highlight a paragraph, ask for relevant case law, etc.
I thought ~2 years ago the results were... not great. Now I'm pretty happy with it.
SecureFrame (helps with compliance regimes like SOC2) recently added the ability to generate Terraform templates to automatically generate infrastructure that will fix specific platform risks for AWS, Azure, GCP, etc.
It definitely needs someone at the helm since it does hallucinate, but I have found it to cut down my time on mundane tasks or otherwise niche/annoying problems. When was the last time you visited 4+ StackOverflow posts to find your answer? Copilot, so far, has always hit a pretty close answer very quickly.
I also had to build intuition for when it will be appropriate versus not. It's hard to describe but one very positive signal is certainly "will any hallucination be caught in <30s"? Even in ChatGPT Plus you can have it write its own unit tests and run them in the original prompt (even in the profile's Custom Instructions so you don't have to type it all the time).
So a mistake was using it for something where runtime performance on dozens of quirky data files was critical; that nearly set my CPU on fire. But str>str data cleanup, chain of simple API calls, or some a one-off data visualization? chef kiss
> to write every line for basic stuff you've done 1000x before
There are ways to avoid writing basic stuff you've done 1000x before that are better than LLMs though...
Put it in a well-thought-out function or package or other form of shared/reusable code. You can validate it, spend the time to make sure it covers your edge cases, optimize it, test it, etc. so that when you go to reuse it you can have confidence it will reliably do what you need it to do. LLM-generated code doesn't have that.
(When you think about how LLMs are trained and work, you realize they are actually just another form of code reuse, but one where there are various transformations to the original code that may or may not be correct.)
Where LLMs shine for coding is in code-completion. You get the LLM output in little chunks that you can immediately review correctly and completely, in the moment: "yeah that's what I want" or "no, that's no good" or "ok, I can work with that". Not surprising, since predicting completion is what LLMs actually do.
I don't know exactly how you use it, but this isn't my experience at all. If you ask a LLM anything too specific, that isn't obvious and a common issue/discussion ( something that I almost never need to do), it just makes up nonsense to fill the space.
Equally, if you ask it general questions it misses information and is almost always incomplete, leaving out slightly more obscure elements. Again, I need comprehensive answers, I can come up with incomplete ones myself.
What's really obvious to me when I use it is that it's a LLM trained on pre-existing text, that really comes through in the character of its answers and its errors.
I've very glad others find them useful and productive, but for me they're disappointing given how I want to use them.
That's fair, it might not be for you. In 'old school ML', for a binary classifier, there's the concept of Precision (% of Predicted Positive that's ACTUALLY Positive) and Recall (% of ACTUALLY Positive that's Predicted to be Positive).
It sounds like you want perfect Precision (no errors on specific Qs) and perfect Recall (comprehensive on general Qs). You're right that no model of any type has ever achieved that on any large real-world data, so if that's truly the threshold for useful in your use cases, they won't make sense.
I just want something useful. I'm not talking perfection, I'm talking about answers which are not fit for purpose. 80% of the time the answers are just not useful.
How are you supposed to use LLMs if the answers they give are not salvageable with less work than answering the question yourself using search?
Again, for some people it might be fine, for technical work, LLMs don't seem to cut it.
Sorry if this is sophmoric, but when you said "you have to have clarity of thought" - what jumped to mind was the phrase "you have to speak to the code"... I thought it encapsulated your clarity of thought quite saliently for me.
lol, the internal docs on this at Amazon were something very close to "we invented this before Avro and we think that's probably a better choice if you need binary serialization."
I have never used Ion so I cannot speak to its use in practice, but I haven't really had too much of an issue with msgpack. It's faster than JSON, more compressed than JSON, without being any more difficult than any JSON library I've used. It's an almost-universal good for me; the only thing you lose is the ability to easily introspect the messages if there's an issue.
Honestly, if you’re in a case where you absolutely know none of these work for you and you can absolutely prove you need another, you’re probably just going to write your own. And that’s a fleetingly rare case.
WarpStream relies on a proprietary metadata store hosted within their internal network to operate, so it's pretty unlikely that Jepsen tests could cover that.
If you're ok with the externally hosted metadata stores as well as the high per-request latencies (p99 of 400ms, according to WarpStream), it's highly likely that things like liveness and safety properties are pretty far from your mind. So, I wouldn't bank on them submitting to a Jepsen test. :)
I think that WarpStream relying on a proprietary metadata store isn't an issue for Jepsen tests. If I understand correctly, Jepsen tests treat the distributed databases (or logs like Kafka) pretty much as a black box. Jepsen tests introduce partitions and look for missing/unexpected items against the items that were acknowledged as written successfully by the system.
If you look at Kyle's blog post, https://aphyr.com/posts/293-jepsen-kafka, there is no mention of looking into a broker's storage or any storage for that matter.
FWIW we subject WarpStream to continuous chaos/fault injection in our integration tests and staging environment to verify correctness and liveness properties. I wouldn't say they're far from our mind, we've just made a big trade off around latency that we think will make sense for a lot of people.
Tell me you're in your 4th year at a BigCo without telling me you're in your 4th year at a BigCo.
The goals of the organization are mostly a facade. The people running the organization, and their actions, are what the goals of the organization actually are.
No, I’m not at BigCo, at least not in anything at all close to the scale of of FAANG.
But I do work in an industry where even the C-level people usually (not always) have at least a little interest in truly pursuing mission <X>
I know this for a fact because even though I am not at all C-level or even the manager of a large team, I often have a seat of the table in the meetings where such people come together. Those meeting can be ugly, they can reveal how the sausage is made, to borrow that analogy. And I’ve seen how many (not all) truly are trying to get <X> done but doing so may require a bit of ugly sausage making to get there.
And I’m not a wide eyed 4th year either. I’m a grizzled and usually cynical veteran in my field. My job is often to put out fires, or produce analytical tools or output of strategic importance, and also to sometimes to plug a major gap in operational capabilities. I’m not really a manger but I’ve earned a seat at the table when the highest people get together as well as when they interface with counterparts at other organizations.
Don’t take that that to mean too much though: I may have a voice, but it is by far, very far, the smallest voice in the room.
> The people running the organization, and their actions, are what the goals of the organization actually are.
Obviously. Are you suggesting that one can’t appreciate those? Or that this is some secret? Maybe the communication in the orgs you’ve been with has been poor?
I don't really know enough about Kysely yet to make an informed opinion between those two. If you know more than me, can you give me your take??
Edit: Hmmm perhaps based on the primary author's other repos (https://github.com/mythz) it looks like they're a fan of C#. Perhaps it's the LINQ-like syntax that separates them the most.