Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | time4tea's commentslogin

Yup, this works so nice.

Using traefik or caddy as proxy.

Docker context for remote access - over Internet or vpn, whatever.

Swarm-cronjob for scheduled things.

Labels for things that need to run in particular places.

So easy.

Personally, k8s is fine, but its an abstraction for building a service architecture, not the thing an end user (developer) should ever use. If you are in a big company and you are using helm or k8s yaml files to roll things out, your infra or platform teams have missed something out.. building the platform!


Website was too long.

ScrumMaster - a qualification you cannot fail. (Pls pay fee)

Ultimately big company look for things to help them sort their terrible product and software processes.

The whole point of agile, its that you don't know!

If you are SaFE, or 4 week sprints.. you are in management imposed bs.

Your company is a about to be eaten.


I mean, sure.

But what about allowing user inputs in trusted fields,

Or allowing switching environments per request, on inputs from users

Or allowing requests in a user context to access storage from another

Or storing everything in plaintext on a node that everything can access

Or not validating user inputs

Or...

Its not a success story.



No mention of JVM.. which is a bit odd as recently is kinda solved this problem. Sure, not all use cases, but a lot.

It uses N:M threading model - where N virtual threads are mapped to M system threads and its all hidden away from you.

All the other languages just leak their abstractions to you, java quietly doesn't.

Sure, java is kinda ugly language, you can use a different JVM language, all good.

Don't get me wrong, love python, rust, dart etc, but JVM is nice for this.


Solved assuming you can afford a huge embedded-unfriendly runtime.

It is mentioned


Ah yeah, you are right. It was easy to miss, as it was ~30 words in a massive article.


Super interesting article.

Didn't operate for long? 1984-1995 - its long enough. Still remember seeing those scrambled programs in France.

At the time in UK, lets say 87-92, the concept of paid tv over the air was incredible. Satellite existed, but wasn't very prevalent.


Carbon offsetting is a nonsense.

Any company that uses it, is doing nothing other than buying a grant to pollute.


"Buying grants to pollute" is literally how cap-and-trade systems work, and they've been extremely effective at reducing pollution. We don't hear about "acid rain" anymore because of cap-and-trade of sulfur dioxide.

But we don't really have cap-and-trade for carbon, so the next best thing is public pressure to be net-zero rather than literally zero.


> We don't hear about "acid rain" anymore

Because of the de-industrialization of the West.


More because we switched away from coal, and what coal we still use we pre-process to remove the sulfur.



a cap-and-trade system is just a tax but more complicated and less predictable


I agree with the second sentence but I don't see how it implies the first. "Leave no trace" is a principle of outdoor recreation, not the fundamental meaning of life, and generating greenhouse gases is often necessary to produce goods and services people enjoy.


Agreed. Carbon offsetting always reminds me of this old The Register article: https://www.theregister.com/2008/02/01/bofh_episode_4/


So hard to read that article, with all the pop ups, scroll hijacks, and back button grabbing (soon to be illegal)

Why do they try to hide actual content with hateful tech?

Anyhow, no way I would give that company money.


When you create an app in GitHub - you are required to create a private key so that you can sign requests on behalf of your app.

Sounds reasonable.

However... to create the private key, they require you to download the private key from them. Which means they have it. So ANY APP on GitHub can be impersonated by GitHub as they have the key material for every app... so what is the point?

Am I losing my mind?

edit: i can't edit the link - it should be https://github.com/settings/apps


Well, first of all, them giving you the key doesn't prove they kept it. From all I know, it is discarded, not stored.

But even if they do keep it, github owns their own platform. If they wanted to do shit with your app, they wouldn't need the key for that, they could just skip any security that required the key. At some point, you either trust github to securely host your stuff, or you don't.

In any case, keys are for protection from 3rd parties and an audit trail of who did what, neither of which are invalidated by github having access to their own platform.


Hmm, not sure - the entire point of this sort of thing is that nobody should ever have your private key material. Whether they say they discard it is immaterial, they have had it, so they could use it, and then as far as everyone is concerned, they are you.

Because the key is sent via the web, anyone in the way can see it. In lots of companies, trusts are manipulated so that the content is visible to intermediate proxies.

With a private key that has been given to you by somebody else, it is possible to repudiate any transaction that was made with the key. Its not so much as they could skip any security - its that if they have the key, they don't have to.

keys are protection from anyone, and an audit trail isn't useful when its possible to forge/repudiate literally anything.

imagine if your card pin was also written down in the card factory - you'd be suspicious that anyone can withdraw money from your account - and the bank would say 'ah but only you know it'. In fact this did happen - the bank was only issuing 3 different pin numbers.


>Well, first of all, them giving you the key doesn't prove they kept it. From all I know, it is discarded, not stored.

Intelligence community has a maxim: evaluate adversaries on capabilities, not feelings. If you get the key from GitHub, they have the capability to escrow it. This violates the security model. End of story. Trust is a feeling, not an objective guarantee.

>But even if they do keep it, github owns their own platform. If they wanted to do shit with your app, they wouldn't need the key for that, they could just skip any security that required the key. At some point, you either trust github to securely host your stuff, or you don't.

Your "trusting" in this instance has no bearing on the security of the system. It is insecure by definition. The "Trust" you are speaking of is the same "Trust" the finance bros seek to cultivate at all costs. Which is the subjective freedom from aversion of making one's resources available to them to capitalize on.

>In any case, keys are for protection from 3rd parties and an audit trail of who did what, neither of which are invalidated by github having access to their own platform.

It is invalidated. All GitHub needs is a public key. The one and only reason to have the private key, is to be able to sign in the author's stead, which pops open the Pandora's box of malicious shadow modification; especially if all infra to do so is also hosted by GitHub as well. The private key is forbidden knowledge. The mere fact of having it taints the ultimate intentionality of the system. If it were truly meant for security, GH would never ever see the private side of that keypair.

Objective capabilities. Not feelings.


See also 2600Hz...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: