Terraform and the CDK use different programming models to achieve similar goals. The CDK takes a more dynamic scripting approach much like Gradle, while Terraform is more descriptive and declarative. Functionally, I think they have similar capabilities.
Worked on a video licensing project for a cable company for six months, canceled after a merger. Worked on a tool for consulting companies to track their engineers expertise, canceled after I left. Worked on a voice assistant, canceled after ChatGPT came out.
There are a lot of dead ends in software. You get over it after awhile, just keep coding.
The way foster care works children will be placed with foster parents for a few years, then be returned to their parents, then be placed back in foster care with a different family, over and over again. The system is not setup to prioritize a stable environment. The reality is that to provide a healthy stable environment for these kids, we would have to effectively eliminate their parents from their lives. We'd basically have to say, "It's great you are off drugs and have a house and job now, but you don't get to have your kids back ever because they need stability". In general we prioritize getting kids back with their families over a healthy or stable environment.
the problem is that children need both. a stable environment and a good relationship to their parents. therefore, if the parents are the cause of the instability, it's actually the parents who need help, therapy and what not. the failure in the current system is not providing that help.
so what we really need is a system where parents can develop a good relationship with their children, while having the support to build that stable environment.
i have seen an example in germany where the parents and kids live together in a form of supervised housing, where the family is not on their own but where multiple families live together with one or more socialworkers supporting them, making sure that things do not go out of hand and the parents can learn what a stable environment is (because most likely they didn't have a stable environment when they grew up themselves, so they have no experience to draw on)
Not to mention making an already gut-wrenching decision (to place your own child into the foster system) even more difficult if it's perceived to be a one-way door.
I think this may be different stae to state. Here you cannot just place your kid in foster care, they need to meet certain criteria e.g. they are abused or neglected. I guess you could purposefully neglect your kid but there are legal risks there for sure.
The way you can choose to "place" your kid in foster care is to voluntarily terminate your parental rights, which is outside of very rare circumstances a one-way trip. Regardless it is still done both for medical reasons and inability to deal with behaviors.
Yes, it's pretty common. The downside to these kinds of arrangements is that the family potentially is not able to do a lot for the kid. If the doctor or the school system decides to ask for any paperwork you're not technically able to take the kid to the doctor, make educational choices, etc.
true, but whether that is an issue really depends on how involved and cooperative the parents are. presumably if parents are looking for private foster places they are able to be involved when needed, like register kids for school. the doctor should also be manageable, otherwise i could not even send my kids to their grandparents for the holidays. so i think in most cases this should work out. no doubt however there are cases where it doesn't. but in such cases government involvement is probably warranted anyways.
Ad blocking is not theft. If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft. Youtube is freely sending people content. No one is forcing Youtube to send them cat videos. No one is acquiring Youtube videos illegally via torrents.
Ad blocking is only possible on Youtube because Youtube insists on doing big data auction based advertising. If they wanted to, Youtube could embed ads in the video stream making it impossible to block them.
Youtube does not have a right to display whatever content they want on my devices. If they freely send me data, I have the right to display that data however I can on my device.
If Youtube wanted they could end the utility of adblock today. They could only send data to people who paid. They could embed ads into the video stream. It is their choice to make adblocking possible on Youtube.
Because it's my device. If youtube wants to not send me the video, that's perfectly within their rights. But once they've sent the video, their rights end unless they have a contractual agreement with me personally.
Me. And, I believe, the vast majority of other humans who have given it any thought.
> They don't? Why not?
If you feel that way, you must also believe I have the right to display whatever I want on your devices. Which you naturally agree I do, right? I hope you like very early morning disco...
> it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
People can say whatever they like. Like, I can say "for reading these words, the person behind the insanitybit account owes me $20."
Tell me, just how obligated do you feel to pay that?
If I don't want to view this post I can close the window. I'm on HN, a site with an existing ToS. If HN decided to put ads on display and say "if you want to read you have to abide by a ToS that ensures you don't block our ads" obviously that would be legal.
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the [ToS], didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
- Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (slightly modified by me).
Equivocating sending a GET request with signing/agreeing to a 100 page contract of legalese is about as ridiculous a proposition as the quote I posted depicts, if not more.
holy fucking shit. no. you've been gaslit into this absolutely insane reality friend.
bodily autonomy is basical human right number one, including the right the close your fucking eyes. there's no fucking "contract law" with https requests. if you're playing devil's advocate, well the devil forgetting basic human rights is bad rhetoric
> Well, it seems obvious that they can say "in exchange for sending you this video you must watch the ads".
"you must watch" is bodily autonomy. currently what they can enforce technologically is "you must wait" for these 30 seconds of ads, which I can close my eyes for, or similarly with technology block the domain name they are served from
> > If it were, leaving the room with the television on while ads were playing would also be theft.
> Who says it isn't?
"you must stay" is bodily autonomy. I'm not sure how this is hard to understand
That is owned by a non-profit organization. It seems like a lot of the employees are chasing money, and forgetting that it's fundamentally not trying to maximize profit. Of course, Sam seems to have perverted its mission to be the latter (serving as the latest high-priest of mammon, like Elias served Lillith)
It's not even whether our healthcare is socialized or not. Our health insurance regulatory system is setup to be adversarial between insurers and providers. If we can break up that dynamic we'd see cost improvement even if we didn't move to an entirely socialized system.
You basically can't shop for products with many options on amazon anymore. It still works for books and things where you know you are getting the right product. But for most goods its easier to use Apple Pay on a shopify store.
I've never seen the point of performance reviews for me as an employee. Either they are pointless or something I have to game for promotions. If performance reviews are factored into promotions, you have to game the books to ace them. If performance reviews aren't relevant for promotions, what's the point exactly? Positive and negative feedback don't help me when it's about things that happened six months ago. A 1.5% raise could just be an email.
