Microservices

I realize you're being sarcastic (I think), but I actually would put microservices in the same boat. There was a huge push to microservices in the mid teens, and a lot of companies came to hugely regret it. There is a reason this video, [VIDEO] , is so popular. And it's not that "no one is using microservices", it's just that tons of companies realized they added almost as many complications as they alleviated, and that for many teams they were just way too premature. And a lot of the companies that I've seen have the most success with microservices are also the most pragmatic about them: they use them in some specific, targeted areas (e.g. authn and authz), but otherwise they're content using a well-componentized monolith where they can break off independent services later if there is an explicit reason to do so.

Wingman is cool and all, but OmegaStar is really holding things up - still waiting on ISO timestamp support: [VIDEO] [LINK] Shout out to the Galactus team!

I think this is more a revolt against unnecessary complexity, which I think is a discussion to be had. I am not solving drastically more difficult problems than I did twenty years ago, yet the amount of complexity, maintenance, and overhead is staggering. Why? Oh, because "that's how they do it at the FAANG". [VIDEO]

Having worked in big tech and small startups, I think GraphQL is a brilliant way to solve an organizational problem that massive tech companies have. It's that the team maintaining the API is different from the team that needs changes to the API. Due to the scale of the organization the latter doesn't have the access or know-how to easily add fields to that API themselves, so they have to wait for the maintainers to add the work to their roadmap and get back to it in a few quarters. Relevant Krazam: [VIDEO] At a small start-up, if the GET /foo/:fooId/bar/ endpoint is missing a field baz you need, you can usually just add it yourself and move on.

[VIDEO] ("Microservices" by KRAZAM) But, parody aside, I'm with you: there must be one for every route in their API, and then another 250 for doing schema validation. I was being funny when I wrote that, but in the far left of their diagram is a circle named "apimeta"

I was just feeling down as I completed a 3 hour code screen where I was supposed to be recording my screen the whole time I worked, but somehow I botched it and don't have any recording to show. Awkward and my own fault... Those chicken diagrams got a legitimate smile and chuckle out of me though. Thanks for the day brightener!! Reminded me a bit of this "Microservices" youtube sketch which also includes a surreal architecture diagram (and is very funny): [VIDEO]

Why would your Linux get messed up? > That sounds horrible^Hy unproductive A friend of mine works for BlackRock, they simply work on remote Windows virtual desktops. He is not complaining about speed/efficiency. A different friend works for ALDI (like Walmart just smaller), he got an issued MacBook (Pro?). When he connected an external USB hard drive the next day (or sooner?) he got an email about it because some automated scanner thing found something suspicious on it. So at these sizes software development is already inefficient. But mostly because of the complexity. (You know ... [VIDEO] )

>The fundamental anonymity model Google have employed is that the VPN tunnel is authenticated using "blind tokens" which are signed by an authorization service "Zinc." The Zinc service validates OAuth credentials passed in from the client app to verify a user's subscription, then signs the blind token created by the client app to authorize the user's session with the actual VPN backend "Copper." Ostensibly, this will separate the user's Google identity from the VPN identity since the VPN service only knows that it got a valid, signed user token, not what user that token belongs to. In video form for those not keeping up: [VIDEO]