> The CEO at my last company (2022) refused to use Let's Encrypt because "it looked cheap to customers".
Spoken like a true dinosaur. How can a certificate based on open, public and proven secure protocols be cheap?
> So my question: has anyone actually commented to you in a negative way about using Let's Encrypt?
No, but I personally judge businesses which claim to be tech savvy if they don’t have an ACME issued certificate, because to me that instantly shows I’m not dealing with someone who has kept up with technology for the last 10 years.
Yeah you've correctly identified the mindset there that the leadership had in my case. They didn't want to upgrade to an in-support version of MySQL either...
Look at plaintext benchmark, if you want to compare just servers. Also look at Spring score in fortunes, which is the more common Java stack and I think a more suitable comparison.
This works as designed. Sanctions like these are meant to piss off the people living in terrorist states so that you either rise up and rid yourself of all terrorist roots or you accept that the rest of the world doesn’t want to play ball with terrorists or terrorist enablers.
Have you ever risen up against an authoritarian government yourself?
I find that a lot of Westerners seem to have what I can only charitably describe as "romantic notions" of an uprising. Americans perhaps the most because of their national mythology around the Independence War.
I don't know. If I would run "docker run hello-world" and got and error "403" because I'm from Iran, I would be more pissed at US for making my life harder.
---
unrelated but jesus christ I'm so pissed at west as a russian. For years London was welcoming russian oligarhs with their stolen money. Putin was invited to Finland even after 2014 invasion of Crimea. But you fuckers decided to ipmlement sanctions only after the 2022. So if I sell my appartment in Russia and want to transfer money to Europe now I would need to prove this is not money I pillaged from Ukraine. Absolutely disgusting. Supposedly Finland continues to buy russian minerals still, but as a russian I cannot cross the border with Finland, even if I have a visa.
> unrelated but jesus christ I'm so pissed at west as a russian
> So if I sell my appartment in Russia and want to transfer money to Europe now I would need to prove this is not money I pillaged from Ukraine.
Just stay at home then, whats the problem? If you are so pissed with the West then why is it a problem that you cannot come here? Just stay in Russia then.
Oh man... we here in the UK and EU look at the US with envy. Our governments are so inept to even understand basic economics (currently the UK is trying to tax itself to growth), whilst the US government is enabling their own people and US businesses to flourish in emerging markets like AI.
Until you come here and realise that your 300k US job only pays 60k here, of which you get taxed more than a third of it and then your taxes only buy you a 2 year NHS waiting list where by the time you get to see a doctor your tumour has grown to the size of a tennis ball and you’re going to die because you couldn’t get healthcare fast enough.
Kind of amusing to bring up grasp of basic economics in praise of the Trump administration. Brits and Europeans have many opinions and emotions on that subject; envy isn't really one of them
I mean, our politicians have realized that they should attempt to take credit for AI too, without taxing any penguins or manufacturers' supply chains!
How would I self host this in k8s? Would I deploy a ClickHouse cluster using the Altinity operator and then connect it using the HyperDX local mode or what is the recommended approach to self-host ClickStack?
I tried it and found it to be such an abomination. I can’t understand why any self respecting software developer would use Windows with a bastard linux like WSL instead of just using actual Linux. Feels like a massive skill issue.
This is not the first or last time this has happened. Microsoft does it intentionally and when they get caught they then give a fake apology and pretend it was a mistake. These mistakes keep happening and the pattern is always the same, MS teams engaging with a developer to learn all about their business idea and then they steal it:
Biological sex is not binary. There are (at least) three criteria to be considered:
(1) cromosomes. females are XX, males are XY. But other combinations exist: XXY, XXX, XXXY, etc. There is no universal agreement of how those combinations should be best matched to the binary system.
(2) phenotype. females have a vulva, a vagina, and ovaries, males have a scrotum, a penis, and testicles. But some people have no, or half, or a large, or small of one or another. Furthermore, the phenotype might not match with the chromosomes: one example is an XY chromosome type while the person has a vulva, vagina, and internal testicles. There is no universal agreement of how those people should best be classified to the binary system -- the best is probably to recognise that they are non-binary.
(3) hormone level. females have a typical level of hormons and males have different levels. But this is not universally clear-cut. This is one of the most frequent reasons for dispute at sport events when otherwise very obvious women have hormone levels that are 'too male'. Again, no universal agreement of what to do here: ignore the hormone levels in these cases? But why? Usually, they match. But not always.
There are also male outliers that have hormone levels that are higher than for males. These males might also be excluded from sports competitions for the same reason, despite being on the right side of the binary scale, but they are too far on that side. Again -- there is no agreement whether this is still the normal male category or maybe non-binary.
And this is just the biological sex. For gender and identification, there is more. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny how some governments define sex as binary by reducing it to biological sex or maybe assigned sex -- it is really like making a law that pi is 3.
But note that the judges here made it clear that it is not their place to make a judgement on this complex topics.
This is an inaccurate narrative of sex in that it doesn't take into account other sexually reproducing species.
More specifically: not all species have an XY chromosome sex-determination system (see ZW or temperature-based systems), not all species have the same anatomy for sexual reproduction (consider egg-laying species), and other species have different sex hormones (for example insects have a hormonal system unique from mammals).
The biologist perspective of sex is to consider gametes (sex cells) as the basis. Two types, with one type (female) larger than the other (male). All other understanding relevant to the exact mechanism in each species is built upon this.
Isn't what you described here just a variation of chromosomes? We know there are more than two combinations, but Sex is still determined binary via the existence or absence of the Y chromosome, no?
Most people typically look at genitals to determine sex. However, as beeforpork pointed out, there are individuals with XY chromosomes who have a vulva, a vagina, and internal testicles. Based on physical appearance alone, which is often the basis for sex determination at birth or during annual physicals, they would be classified as female. Yet, their chromosomes tell a different story. This complexity suggests that it may be inappropriate to strictly categorize them as either male or female. This is what it means to be non-binary. Beeforpork did a good job of detailing other instances where biological markers of sex don't align with the so-called sex chromosomes.
You seem to be arguing for a more superficial definition of sex? I think that fits better with gender, which is a lot more flexible than biology. At the end of the day casual language isn't set up to draw distinctions between gender and sex, "Woman" or "Man" is generally taken to refer to both gender and sex. In reality of course that isn't necessarily the case, and in law it's important to strictly define terms.
So the court did just that, and defined (for the purposes of legislation) what "Man" and "Woman" refers to, i.e. sex not gender. A person with XY chromosomes, but some sort of developmental disorder that makes them appear feminine isn't some kind of massive puzzle from a biological point of view either, you'd just say "Male with AIS" for example. From a legal (in the UK now) point of view you'd say the same, and from a social point of view you'd say whatever that person identifies as.
People love pointing out that biology is complex, but for some reason bristle at the prospect of language that accurately expresses that complexity. And to be clear, if someone who is XY identifies as a woman... *Call them a woman!* It's rude and cruel to do otherwise, but from a legal standpoint it's unhelpful to play word games.
No, I was arguing the presence or not of a Y chromosome is insufficient in determining sex. Besides which, very few people have ever had a chromosome test. There are women in this world who have no idea they have an XY chromosome, yet they've been female their entire life. Legally calling that person 'male' is an affront to their person, and I would argue the Law has no power to make such a claim.
> When it comes to the law though, word games are unhelpful and get in the way, clear definitions are required.
Yes, this is what the judges were tasked to clarify. And they clarified. The situation is better now, i.e., those laws are not ambiguous anymore (well, except for that 'what is biological sex' discussion...). It is quite an arbitrary clarification, but they clarified, and arguably, they could only do it wrong. They write themselves that they are not trying to define what sex or gender is. But they disambiguated existing laws, which by itself, is a good thing.
Obviously, this is not a good judgement for trans people, but the underlying problem is not with this judgement, but that the laws are not good. No definition of what sex or gender is will make those laws better. Judges cannot change that; legislation needs to change that. The judgement clarifies that the laws were made to protect cis women from cis men. The laws unfortunely do not protect trans women. And that's bad. Completely agreed.
The discussion here has drifted in the direction of how to or not to define biological sex -- and that's also not helpful for trans rights. But the topic is still interesting and no-one claimed to be solving problems, I think.
The law does actually protect trans-identifying individuals via the "gender reassignment" characteristic. So for instance an employer can't disadvantage an employee for having that protected characteristic.
What the Supreme Court clarified the law doesn't do is grant them additional privileges, like access to spaces designated solely for the opposite sex.
This isn't Schrodinger's cat, a lack of observation doesn't make the chromosomes go away, and really focusing on intersex people when the topic is trans people feels like a bit of a shell game anyway. You are however entitled to your opinion, to present as you see fit, and I think you have the right to be treated according to how you present.
When it comes to the law though, word games are unhelpful and get in the way, clear definitions are required. In terms of respecting human dignity, these definitions change nothing; people inclined to respect trans people will still feel the same way, and bigots will hardly change either. You can still have laws and legal structures designed to protect people while recognizing the reality of their biology, because it's about GENDER identity, not BIOLOGICAL identity.
Ok what you both say makes sense but none of what you said so far negates the fact that strictly speaking sex is binary, defined by the existence of a Y chromosome and that this is also immutable. It’s completely possible that the externalities presented at birth may lead to a wrong sex assignment, but that is a separate issue of human error isn’t it?
Why is it so important to you that sex/gender is binary? Maybe try to relax and be a little less judgemental. It really does not matter for you what other people's sex is.
Intuitively, for normal people on the street, and arguably for politicians trying to define that sex is binary, how you would read a person is their sex. So that is, I would say, the historic traditional way of determining sex: by look and intuition (called common sense, usually). That's also how sex is determined at birth. (Note that in some cases, nurses need help with that, because it's not intuitively clear...)
Because this intuitional method does not work well, other ways have been tried to find something more objective than having a quick look. We found the sex chromosomes. But they are not binary either, as mentioned above. Now, one way of making chromosomes forcibly binary is to take the check for a Y cromosome, as you say. But that's just one arbitrary simplification. It is not an universally agreed criterion, because it does not always match with other criteria, particularly looks/intuition nor hormones.
And even intuitively, I argue, you should know that sex is non-binary. There are people where you cannot easily read the sex. You have an immediate intuition most of the time, sure, but not always. And then, as mentioned, your intuition may contradict chromosomes and/or hormone level categorisation of that person.
Another example: typically, an XY chromosome person with female external genitals is most probably read as clearly female. But by chromosome judgement, as you suggest, they would be clearly XY male. And at birth, they are most probably be classified as female. But they do have testicals and high testosterone levels, which again is totally in line with the male chromosomes.
Sex is not binary. Really. The world is not that simple. I'd argue that instead of trying to force sex to be binary, we should just try to not care so much about sex and gender. Because why?
So you are saying that someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome should use the men's bathroom, even though they have fully female genetalia?
Huh? Nobody made any statements about bathroom usage or such, nor has the UK ruling anything to do with bathroom access. We are discussing the definition of sex and how the court ruling came to the conclusion .
To be clear, that's not what this ruling says, that would be a consequence of other laws that can be changed if there's political will. The ruling is just a narrow definition for legal purposes of what the words "Man" and "Woman" mean. If a law is passed allowing for gender identity to be on a passport, then you could have someone who was afab put "Male" on the passport if they're trans.
And if such a law isn't passed, or a law explicitly banning that is passed, then *that law* is the issue, not the definition of sex dictated by biology. Remember, sex and gender are not the same.
Am I the only one who finds it weird that people want to migrate their tweets? Is it just sentimental feelings or what is the purpose of that? To me tweets have always just been in-the-moment brain farts. People have tens of thousands of tweets with the vast majority being just completely irrelevant now and really rather uninteresting. This reminds me of people who keep all their school notebooks in shelves from when they were 5 years old, as if you'd ever go back and look at some scribbles from 50 years ago.
Spoken like a true dinosaur. How can a certificate based on open, public and proven secure protocols be cheap?
> So my question: has anyone actually commented to you in a negative way about using Let's Encrypt?
No, but I personally judge businesses which claim to be tech savvy if they don’t have an ACME issued certificate, because to me that instantly shows I’m not dealing with someone who has kept up with technology for the last 10 years.
reply