Who on Earth is in the set of peeps who's both wealthy enough to do so and lives in awe of Musk? Wouldn't such fool and said fool's money have been parted long ago?
ChromeOS is more than enough for lots of roles. Even for devs (backend, web and android etc) it should be good enough if you have good enough CPU, RAM and storage.
Sure and water is enough for hydration so their cafeteria has no actual coffee or what.
If you'd force me (a dev used to work on a blazingly fast Linux machine) to use this I'd just be inclined to look for a job elsewhere. Not sure if that was in your interest as a corp.
Or they query the DNS very often. Most devices have DNS caching, so if things like tiktok.com end up there, there must be a loot of devices (also, a lot of subdomains, which aren't visible in these lists).
Are there host lists for pihole/adguard/ublock for these kinds of domains?
I'd assume the domains change regularly if it's malware or bot networks, but because they rank so high in this list, it sounds like it should be feasible to keep a blocklist somewhat up to date.
It could also be ad networks; create random domains and subdomains so that simple domain blocklists are difficult to keep up to date efficiently (or at least, so that constant maintenance is required).
It could be a good pattern for spam/ads organizations, changing the random domain name as soon as traffic drops because the actual ones ended in enough blocklists.
If you can transfer to another team internally, do it. Otherwise start looking for another job. I’ve done both to escape bad managers. In my experience there is no way to “fix” a bad manager. The only solution is to leave.
I'd like to disagree with this but it's the only thing that's worked for me.
If you do stay, there's a good chance the manager will eventually be found out. You can play a subtle sabotage game in the background to expedite it. Don't save them from their mistakes, and undermine them by talking about the mistakes. Don't blame them but rather let conversation about mistakes lead them to the same conclusion.
Personally I'm not patient enough to stick around anywhere, so I definitely wouldn't in your case unless I really cared.
> Why not require two or three reviews if they are so helpful at finding mistakes?
For secure software, e.g. ASIL-D, you will absolutely have a minimum 2 reviewers. And that’s just for the development branch. Merging to a release branch requires additional sign offs from the release manager, safety manager, and QA.
By design the process slows down “velocity”, but it definitely increases code quality and reduces bugs.
Once again let me reframe the mindset. Trying to get a perfect change where you anticipate every possible thing that will go wrong beforehand is impossible - or at least extremely costly. The alternative is to spend your effort on making it easy to find and fix problems after.
You are not anticipating every possible bugs. It's mostly a learning experience for you and the team if it's done correctly. Someone may proposes another approach, highlight certain aspects that needs to be done "right" (definition may vary), let you know possible pitfalls, etc... It's not always LGTM.
