I can't believe people are paying these crazy amounts for what is basically a fleet of firewalls. What is the difficulty in running VMs with nftables rules?

running a VM where? on an ec2 instance? who's going to keep that updated for me? who's going to reprovision it when aws retires the underlying hardware? who's going to monitor it for PCI compliance for me? i don't want to deal with all that. i could dump it on fargate, but at that point it's barely cheaper than just using the official version.

i've had to look at my nat gateway zero times since i set it up a couple years ago. i can't say that about any VM host i've got. to me, that's easily worth the few dollars a month that aws charges for it. it's cheaper than hiring somebody, and it's cheaper than me.

It costs a lot more than a few bucks when you’re putting a lot of traffic through it. And running your own NAT instance does not incur per-GB traffic costs.

That said, the paid NAT gateways do also publish metrics. That can be nice when debugging a legitimate issue, such as when your gateway actually runs out of NAT ports to use.

> i don't want to deal with all that

The market will provide. In this case by increasing prices to the point of maximum value extraction from people who don't want to deal with all that. There's a high initial cost to moving to something else here, with a lot of people dragging along paying more than what the market would otherwise equalize to, out of avoiding that initial hurdle. (And long term commitment of a resource, of course, one with low average but indeterminate excursion cost.)

the market has provided. they provided me with a managed NAT gateway service for a price that i'm willing to pay.

Or if nft is too complicated (firewalld) then do ufw.

aws has security groups as well. using NAT for a firewall is overkill.

1) You can't `npm install` it, which is a huge barrier to entry to the modern breed of "engineers".

2) Companies will happily pay thousands in recurring fees for the built-in NAT gateway, but if an engineer asks for even half that as a one-off sum to motivate them to learn Linux networking/firewalling, they'd get a hard no, so why should they bother?

Google sat on this technology for years and didn't release their early chatbots to the public for this reason. The problem is that OpenAI opened Pandora's box and recklessly leaned into it.

Jellyfin isn’t meant to be some highly available distributed system, so of course this happens when you try to operate it like one. The typical user is not someone trying to run it via K8s.

Most of the issues with the database are old sins from Emby. With 10.11 the Jellyfin team finally managed to clean up that mess so they can move forward with a clean implementation. Their blog post on moving to EFCore [1] and version 10.11 release post [2] have more details.

[1] https://jellyfin.org/posts/efcore-refactoring [2] https://jellyfin.org/posts/jellyfin-release-10.11.0/

Yes, I agree. I’ve been eagerly awaiting this change for well over a year now.

Are you an actual bot? 4-month-old account, 0 karma, and that's not even what the article was about.

NASA Goddard is being illegally dismantled during the shutdown. The events/timeline is shown and the full emails sent to Goddard employees are provided. Don't dismiss this as people complaining about a WFH policy--the buildings are being demolished.

No buildings are being demolished. The email is just a reminder of existing early retirement programs. I oppose cutting deep space missions but this article does a very poor job of explaining how those are being cut if they in fact are.

I mean their name is a bit on the nose.

This didn't work for me after importing.

Make sure you're adding it to the "My Filters" section, not the Import section under "Filter Lists". This fixed it for me.

I read this comment, went back to the article, and then came back to this comment. I have no idea what niche political agenda you're talking about- the message of the article is basically "solve problems your users are actually facing, not problems you think they have".

You can apply the concepts the author talks about to _literally_ any group that would make use of social media.

>solve problems your users are actually facing, not problems you think they have

>You can apply the concepts the author talks about to _literally_ any group

The presentation could have been modified to avoid alienating people if the author had focused on champinioning how open social media allows for the ability to solve these problems.

>I have no idea what niche political agenda you're talking about

Search the page for "Why should anyone care?", and you'll see it. Thos section of the talk he complains that the political situation of America doesn't match his views. Then in the next section, "The capitulation of social media", he complains about how other social media sites don't match his politics. Then in the next section, "The decline of journalism", the talker tries to argue his political opinion that journalists are a good thing. Then in the next section, "The problem is global", he explains that more places than just America don't share his political view.

I'll stop here, but it goes on further, even to the very last sentence. I thought this was supposed to be a technology keynote, but this talker turned it into a place for him to complain about the political situation of the world.

So what? People drinking less alcohol is something we should strive for, but I don't see the problem with taxing it and using the income to fund schools. Yes, if people drink less alcohol that will be less money for schools, but that does not automatically mean it will be less money than they receive today.

If people drink less alcohol politicians will have to raise tax revenue some other way, or cut school funding. Either one may cost them re-election. So maybe they won't try so hard to reduce alcohol consumption. In the extreme, sociopathic case, they could tank funding for addiction programs, to take one hypothetical.

The point is: misaligned incentives.

I worked at Amazon in 2021 and rage-quit after 9 months. The sign-on bonus I received was paid out monthly, so I didn't have to pay anything back. If it's large enough, they pay it monthly because they know it's very likely you won't make it to the 2nd year.

Glad they've fixed that.

(Still, though - why work for people who know they're going to treat you so badly you'll probably have to quit?)

Well for me, I was already 46 when a recruiter from Amazon Retail reached out to me about an SDE (software development) position at Amazon Retail. They said it would require relocation after COVID (this was April 2020). I knew about Amazon’s reputation from both stories and my best friend who had worked as an L6 in the finance department.

There was no way in hell I was going to sell my house and uproot my life to work for Amazon. Then the recruiter after she kept talking suggests I interview for a “permanently remote” [1] “field by design” role at AWS ProServe. I thought sure why not?

The plan was always to make some money - I made over a quarter million more over 3.5 years than I could have made as an enterprise dev working in Atlanta - put AWS on my resume, gain some industry contacts and move on in four years.

I saw the writing on the wall shortly before my 3 year anniversary. I played the game well enough to get past my next vesting period and get my “bust your ass and try to work through your PIP or receive a $40K+ severance and ‘leave immediately’”.

I didn’t hesitate. I took the severance and already had two job offers lined up and had been waiting on the severance offer.

[1] They forced their “field by design” customer facing roles in the office at the end of last year. I would have left anyway before I ever went back into the office.

Amazon doesn't seem to work out for a lot of people. I've tended to have long term jobs and probably wouldn't have been tempted to give them a shot.

IIRC they pay it out monthly if the bonus is large enough.