There's a few. My company has been using serverless aurora pretty much since preview and will keep doing so for some parts of infra, but are moving some services back to provisioned.
- Data is replicated cross region, but your compute all lives in the same AZ, so if (when) an AZ goes down you have to wait for a new instance to be created elsewhere. AWS says the time for this is undefined, IIRC we've seen it be around 15-20 minutes before the DB is back online.
- If you have lots of long running transactions or queries, serverless can have trouble finding a scaling point and won't scale up/down. You can set it to force scaling after 5 attempts, but this results in dropped connections and 1-2 minutes of downtime every time.
- Scaling up actually takes 45s-1:30 for new capacity to be available. If your load is spiky enough that that's too slow, you're stuck with overprovisioning anyways.
- Tools like VividCortex don't work for serverless if you rely on those. Teams here that use serverless have shifted to DataDog APM for this purpose.
- Loading data from S3 doesn't work. This wasn't really a usecase we had but it's something to be aware of.
That said, for gradual load or DB downtime tolerant services it's great! Also very nice for dev environments as the scaling down to 0 can result in some very real cost savings.
I thought WireGuard was not yet ready for primetime, why is it being used here? I've been wanting to stand up a VPN at work to make my life easier than SSH tunneling but I was waiting for a 1.0 release of WG.
Looking on the WireGuard site, it says that it's still a work in progress that "may contain security quirks", but they also say "already it might be regarded as the most secure, easiest to use, and simplest VPN solution in the industry." Both statements could be true, but I guess it's up to you whether or not you want to wait for a 1.0 release.
Super neat! One note that I found odd: km/L is a weird way to talk about fuel efficiency for metric. Everywhere that I've seen typically uses L/100km rather than just doing a MPG equivalent conversion.
King street restaurants have high turnover anyways - most of them have not been open that long to begin with. The area has a lot of competition so you really can't get away with being mediocre for very long.
Lots of business were crying foul at the start of the pilot, but credit card transaction data the city has hasn't borne that out.
I'm at $90k with ~3 years experience (located in Toronto). Many of my colleagues are either at 90 or very close (~85) with similar experience. I've lived in Vancouver as well and have seen similar compensation.
Have you read their security white paper[1]? As much as I tend to freak out about cloud storage of password data (one reason I moved off of lastpass), they do seem to take fairly strong steps to host-proof the data (such as having an on-device generated secret key that they never receive).
I did read it. For me, it doesn't matter for two reasons. Professionally, I have a policy to comply with. And personally, I don't use other peoples' machines for personal storage, period. So why would I want my (even well protected, assuming 1PW didn't make a mistake) passwords to be an exception?
How are you determining this without sniffing everyone's traffic? How do you know if someone typed youtube.com into their browser window or clicked a link from an email without access to things like referral headers?
Visa provides protection from a lot of risk on both the buyer and seller's side.
As a seller I know that if a Visa payment clears I'll be getting that money, even if the customer doesn't have it. I don't need to arrange financing or risk taking a check that may bounce long after the customer has disappeared.
As a consumer, I get some measure of protection from fraud and have the option of doing a chargeback and letting Visa sort things out with the vendor if something is not as described.
Just to be clear: as a seller you are not indemnified by Visa if you accept a fraudulent payment. In that case, the money is taken out of the seller's account and returned to the buyer.
You really have no idea how the payment card industry works. Visa provides 0 protection to the buyer or the seller.
The card issuer/bank provides protection to the buyer.
NO ONE provides protection to the seller. The seller's are 100% expose and lose most disputes. With EMV, some of the risks will move but not much. All online transactions are keyed, so not subject to any protection.
Visa doesn't sort out anything, they provide a network and take a cut. Disputes happens between issuer, processor in the middle and merchant. If the processor fails to recover the money from the merchant then the processor is on the hook.
And if the person you ordered from fails to send you the item? Or sends you a defective item? Or if someone steals my info and spends my cash?
Credit cards act as an escrow service to protect against all of those things. Cash (and its online equivalent) has a place in the world, but so do credit cards.
I don't really want, and definitely don't need, that sort of thing. I'd much rather pay for online purchases using something that protects me in the event of fraud.
Hence the existence of credit cards. It would be nice to have these protections without the line of credit attached but you can just ignore it if you want.
Google and Go-Daddy also have a constitutional right not to associate or do business with the alt-right (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.
Transplanted example of this same line of reasoning:
JimBob's Cake Bakery also has a constitutional right not to do business with same-sex couples (or really, anyone else they disagree with). You are protected from the government restricting your speech, no one else has any obligation to put up with you.
Sexual Orientation, unfortunately, does not have explicit federal protections from all forms of discrimination. Though there are state-level protections, and there are a couple of cases that will be heard at the Supreme Court this year that claim otherwise (we'll see if those pan out).
- Data is replicated cross region, but your compute all lives in the same AZ, so if (when) an AZ goes down you have to wait for a new instance to be created elsewhere. AWS says the time for this is undefined, IIRC we've seen it be around 15-20 minutes before the DB is back online.
- If you have lots of long running transactions or queries, serverless can have trouble finding a scaling point and won't scale up/down. You can set it to force scaling after 5 attempts, but this results in dropped connections and 1-2 minutes of downtime every time.
- Scaling up actually takes 45s-1:30 for new capacity to be available. If your load is spiky enough that that's too slow, you're stuck with overprovisioning anyways.
- Tools like VividCortex don't work for serverless if you rely on those. Teams here that use serverless have shifted to DataDog APM for this purpose.
- Loading data from S3 doesn't work. This wasn't really a usecase we had but it's something to be aware of.
That said, for gradual load or DB downtime tolerant services it's great! Also very nice for dev environments as the scaling down to 0 can result in some very real cost savings.