Sure, but SSE connections in the browser - the typical use case - are persistent, so there shouldn't be frequent re-connecting.
Unlike WebSockets, browser SSE also has a built-in recovery mechanism so you don't miss events across reconnects (`Last-Event-ID` header), although this does require explicit support from the server-side app.
Given that the WebSocket handshake has an additional round-trip, SSE would typically be faster in terms of time-to-first-byte.
> you’re still travelling through an entire HTTP stack implementation rather than the incredibly simple WebSocket protocol
Both protocols have their own minimal framing, but "an entire HTTP stack" is a stretch. It's hard to argue that `data:value\n\n` is more complex than the WebSocket binary protocol. Simplistic, sure (no binary payloads), but also simple enough to, say, pipe through a regex. Good luck doing that with WebSocket.
Yes, but all these approaches are optimised for long sessions, not TTFB. If that were very important (say, ecommerce) you might prefer a framework that can hydrate and send the full page on first request, rather than setting up a socket to get data.
> data:value\n\n
I believe the poster was referring to requests from the client to the server having to traverse the HTTP stack, not data coming down from the server via the SSE stream.
> I believe the poster was referring to requests from the client to the server having to traverse the HTTP stack, not data coming down from the server via the SSE stream.
> I find that if you put a decent bit of engineering effort into that "disaster recovery" synchronisation, it can often act as the main or only synchronisation process for quite a lot of systems.
Another benefit is that you get to exercise those disaster recovery mechanisms regularly as part of the normal functioning of the system, rather than a specialized path that is only rarely exercised (and thus may be broken when you need it the most).
A while ago, I noticed some very small oscillations in my Cloudflare R2 bill (1-2 cents / month) and decided to ask about it out of curiosity. Support was tepid - understandable for my $1 / month account - and it wasn't until later that I realized the difference probably had to do with the number of days in the month.
Not sure if you're thinking of the same story, but this reminds me of Cliff Stoll finding KGB hackers poking around military and university networks in the 80s because of a time billing discrepancy.
Depending on the error, the grammar, and the parser, it may not be possible to close the function body. Most compilation units are file-based for this reason.
That leads to the cross-device usability issues from the original post. Even for an experienced engineer, it's a headache to manage multiple devices across multiple sites.
With the "cloud password manager" angle there is some hope of being user friendly, although we're certainly not there yet for most folks.
> want without a PR process that requires hardware authentication or proof of presence
Just curious, what do you use for this?
I built OTP Guard [1] a few years ago for exactly this problem, although I haven't seen any alternatives in the space. Does GitHub have something built-in now?
The original framing was more "local malware compromising your GitHub account" ... it never occurred to me that the malware could be a LLM. I really should update the page.
0) agent gets its own separate git user and ssh key, separate from mine
1) branch protection rules on main, only I can approve merges into main
2) any other ssh key uses (interactive login, direct git access, etc.) are ed25519-sk keys and require a touch on yubikey.
TBH, the biggest hole is that it can be unclear exactly what process is requesting a touch on the yubikey. Apple has a head start here because they can lock down the TouchID UX relatively well, but unfortunately they don’t seem to care about building a polished developer experience for 2FA on sensitive tasks.
They are probably waiting for someone else to build the right solution and then copy/steal it.
I thought the same, too. Generally some small amount of inflation is preferable to encourage spending, rather than deflation which discourages it.
If you know a $100 item will probably cost $102 later then you're more likely to buy it now. But if that item will cost $98 in a deflationary environment, then maybe you'll wait to buy it later. Wages also tend to fall in deflation, which makes it harder to pay back debt, so lending slows down - people won't buy houses or cars, etc. Businesses hold back on capital spending. The economy slows to a standstill: if no one is spending money, how can anyone make money?
I think its more important for investment. If you have $1mil in cash and know it's losing value every day you have an incentive to invest it in some long-term profitable way. Hire more employees, buy some more trucks for your fleet, renovate your store, do some R&D to improve your product, etc. If it's the opposite you don't feel any urgency because your $1mil is gaining value as it sits in the bank.
This is true for investment-level amounts of money and larger percentages, but much less true for everyday purchases and small percentages. For buying a thing, a year of ownership is much more valuable than saving 2%. Look at the computer industry where waiting a year or two almost always gets you significantly better hardware but that doesn't stop people from buying new ones often.
And debts adjust their rates along with inflation/deflation so that effect ends up much smaller.
As for houses and cars, we desperately need to make the economy less focused on the value of houses and cars...
Which translations would you recommend for Crime and Punishment or Dostoyevsky in general?
When I'm starting to read a non-English novel, the process of deciding which translation to use is half the fun. The Kent and Berbera (revised Garnett) version of Anna Karenina was mesmerizing.
There's a lot of low-density sprawl in San Diego county which makes effective transit difficult, and because you have to drive everywhere, sentiment trends anti-bicycle. The previous CEO of SANDAG tried to push a mobility-centric vision but left because of intense pushback from folks who wanted more funding for roads and freeways, rather than transit and bike paths.
reply