Obviously it involves trust that it isn't actually "we say it's e2ee but actually we also MiTM every conversation"

It was enraging - I'm trying to provide references to explain the motivation of my changes, all my prose is nicely formated, but the bulleted list of references I've provided is rejecting my commit.

I generally think it's in the category of a social problem not a technical problem - communicate the expectations but don't dogmatically enforce them

I've found this to work quite well, and the SSL whilst somewhat meaningless from a security pov since the traffic was already encrypted by wire guard, makes the web browser happy so still worthwhile.

I looked at a random repo today, and used some of its (MIT licensed) code as a starting point.

It was an expo plugin for managing android key stores, I didn't need most of what it did, and I went a different direction in the remaining bits - but it still helped me do that quickly. That won't show up in any stats the author can see, but I appreciate their contribution

I still hope to get back to that and try to get it to a state where it can be merged, but I need to figure out how to test the MDM parts of it properly, and ideally get a bit of guidance from the tailscale team on how it should work/is my implementation on the right track (think I had some open questions around the UI as well)

Anyway I emailed the Winrar developers about my idea and they politely explained why they didn't think it was feasible (appreciate they even took the time to respond!)

(https://github.com/rustrum/apate/blob/main/LICENSE-TERMS)

Side note: helping my French housemate with his uni assignments was an experience, none of the symbols were where I expected them to be

For example, our integration test suite on a particular service has become quite slow, but it's not particularly clear where the time is going. I suspect a decent amount of time is being spent talking to postgres, but I'd like a low touch way to profile this

It's possible this is more relevant in B2B contexts than B2C

However I don't think you should outsource understanding to LLMs, and also think that shifting the effort from the writer to the reader is a poor strategy (and disrespectful to the reader)

edit: in case it's unclear I'm not accusing the author of having outsourced their understanding to AI, but I think it's a real risk that people can fall into, the value is in the thinking people put into things not the mechanics of typing it out

A few things I've been thinking about recently:

- we have authentication everywhere in our stack, so I've started including the user id on every log line. This makes getting a holistic view of what a user experienced much easier.

- logging an error as a separate log line to the request log is a pain. You can filter for the trace, but it makes it hard to surface "show me all the logs for 5xx requests and the error associated" - it's doable, but it's more difficult than filtering on the status code of the request log

- it's not enough to just start including that context, you have to educate your coworkers that it's now present. I've seen people making life hard for themselves because they didn't realize we'd added this context

But TIL, I didn't realize you could do multiple levels of partitioning in modern postgres, found this old blog post that touches on it https://joaodlf.com/postgresql-10-partitions-of-partitions.h...

Something that stresses me is the number of partitions - we have some weekly partitions that have a long retention period, and whilst it hasn't become a problem yet, it feels like a ticking time bomb as the years go on.

Would a multi level partitioning scheme of say year -> week be a feasible way to side step the issues of growing partition counts?

Unless you're running a static html export - eg: not running the nextjs server, but serving through nginx or similar

Hardware keys would be better, but I think this is a decent balance or security vs convenience for my needs ATM.