The ultimate irony is that Linus Thorvalds designed git with the Linux kernel codebase in mind to work without any form of infrastructure centralisation. No repo trumps any other.

Surely some of your crazy kids can rummage up a CI pipeline on their laptop? 8)

Anyway, I only use GH as something to sync interesting stuff from, so it doesn't get lost.

Setting up a git server for yourself is actually really easy. I use it at home for personal stuff.

https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protoco...

I wonder how many engineers have even worked on a git repo with multiple remotes.

I’ve only worked on a team once where we all were set up as remotes to each other and that was over a decade ago.

hg really spoiled us with these features, though I also haven't used them in ages

We actually did it with raw git in the cli, but I doubt I could set that up correctly nowadays without pouring over the man pages again.

Given your description, its good to see the USAAF are clearly on the ball when it comes to security. If, say, all your B1s overflew the nutjob bowl then certain planners across the world might decide to act in a certain way. A random assortment leaves everyone guessing.

You could have a 9 plane fly-by of just B2s, and you’d still have less than half our operational stock committed (disregarding maintenance/readiness issues).

Using a few planes for a fly-by, particularly of anything other than B2, wouldn’t possibly “give away” any info.

B2s have made the trip from Whiteman AFB to perform flyovers at the past 20 or so Rose Bowls fwiw

Yup, that's why I chose the B2 for my example: the only fly-by suitable plane that is even close to "resource constrained".

I eventually caved in a couple of years ago and migrated our corp email system to MS (I'm the MD and we are a precious metal "partner").

Our MX records go to my trusty Exim n rspamd MTA on prem. If MS take the piss with subscription costs then, I'll simply move us elsewhere. If they all take the piss, I'll expand our Dovecot somewhat and worry about a calendaring app.

I've been doing email systems for about 30 years now and I think I have a handle on some of the issues involved.

Even fast LACP needs three seconds and that's on the same collision domain.

How does BGP actually detect a link is down? Keep alive default is 30s but that can be changed. If you set it to say one second, is that wise? Once a link is down, that fact will propagate at the speed of BGP and other routing protocols. Recovery will need a similar propagation.

Depending on where the link is, a second can be a "life time" these days or not. It really depends on the environment what an appropriate heart beat interval might be.

Also, given that BGP is TCP based, it might have to interact with other lower level link detection protocols.

BFD or Ethernet-OAM is the standard here.

It can get a bit hardware dependant but getting <50ms failovers from software based BFD in BIRD or FRR is fairly easy, and I've tested down to < 1ms before with hardware based BFD echo. ~50ms is the point at which a user making a traditional VOIP call won't notice the path switch.

You can get NIC's for computers (like most Nvidia/Meallanox or higher end Broadcom/Intel NIC's that do hardware BFD, and its obviously included in higher end networking kit.

You then link the BGP routes to the health of the BFD session for which that path is the next hop, and you get super quick withdrawls.

I.e. bird detects interface failure but this affects only your side of decision making. For bidirectional failure detection you do BFD with BGB. BFD default timers are 3 times 30 ms, iirc.

You might have not run Gentoo. Most Gentooers will begrudgingly but eventually admit to cooking their own gonads when updating a laptop.

Anyway, please define: "correctness".

I'm not sure the "journos" from Techradar are too familiar with how networks ... work.

IPv4 requires an inbound NAT these days to work at all globally, unless you actually have a machine with a globally routable IP. There will probably be a default deny firewall rule too. I do remember the days before NAT ...

IPv6 doesn't require NAT (but prefix translation is available and so is ULA) but again a default deny is likely in force.

You do actually have to try quite hard to expose something to the internets. I know this because I do a lot of it.

The entire article is just a load of buzz words and basically bollocks. Yes it is possible to expose a system on the internet but it is unlikely that you do it by accident. If I was Sead, I'd go easy on the AI generated cobblers and get a real job.

Fortunately there’s an easy way to check…

Fear not, we have Clawdbot! (openclaw whatever) You can put your naked ass on the internet in seconds now.

"from behind a tall SUV, "

I look for shadows underneath stationary vehicles. I might also notice pedestrians "vanishing". I have a rather larger "context" than any robot effort.

However, I am just one example of human. My experience of never managing to run someone over is just an anecdote ... so far. The population of humans as a whole manages to run each other over rather regularly.

A pretty cheap instant human sensor might be Bluetooth/BLE noting phones/devices in near range. Pop a sensor in each wing mirror and on the top and bottom. The thing would need some processing power but probably nothing that the built in Android dash screen couldn't handle.

There are lots more sensors that car manufacturers are trying to avoid for cost reasons, that would make a car way better at understanding the context of the world around it.

I gather that Tesla insist on optical (cameras) only and won't do LIDAR. My EV has four cameras and I find it quite hard to see what is going on when it is pissing down with rain, in the same way I do if I don't clean my specs.

My father was a ISO9000 and ISO9001 certification consultant for over 10 years. He taught at Cal Poly Pamona, near the end of that era. This was my first exposure to using the familiar terms seen in RFCs like MUST MAY SHALL, etc.

Ever tried to write a quality based document describing how to create an air filled, japanese oragami balloon? (step 3 is the first big hurdle, https://www.wikihow.com/Make-an-Origami-Balloon). That was his goto starter for ISO classes.

> I've been doing this for over 25 years and I think that a quality based approach to running a company is a good idea ... you?

ISO standards don't ensure this, since certification is only based on verifying documentation format. What the ISO processes do tend to do is create a small memo indicating that every dept should justify the work they are doing by writing it down and showing it to their boss. What that does to an organization is to produce a crapload of near-useless documentation and throw a large number of people into political hell. After that, the solution is always the same. They quickly move from everyone trying to coordinate down to a very small number of people (1-3) taking charge of moving dept to dept. Either the agents or the supervisors who are articulate enough to gloss over inconsistencies and gaps to form a coherent story, write the documentation.

While this may lend well to shoring up some companies' internals, in the early 2000s, ISO certification consultancy was a lucrative gig. It was chased as a stamp to markup pricing, rather than a quality tool.

I remember the backdated document signing parties at my previous company, the day before an ISO audit. So much fun!

I think "concentrates the mind towards doing things right" is an accurate statement. On the other hand the parent is also correct that it is almost impossible to fail and the requirements are too broad to actually have much effect. The most helpful thing is you get the knowledge and experience of an auditor for a day. Other benefits are having someone make you write your processes down and making it easier to replace people, making sure there is a chart documenting the relationships between the people and to have some language about dealing with customer complaints and defective produce.

When was the last time you touted for this sort of business?

Strictly speaking its ISO 9001 but we do the same as you and call it ISO 9000. You forgot 27001 and 14001.

About 20 years ago, so yes, I might be a little out of date ;)

I've seen it happen time and again with startups, though. They have a great idea, perfect for a large business to use. They get a project manager or department manager excited about it, they even run a PoC successfully. And then they slap headfirst into the Procurement Wall and the whole project grinds to a halt. Three years between project approval and issuing a purchase order. And then 90 days between invoice and payment. Startups go bust waiting for these cogs to turn.

Iso that everyone is certified but nobody can truly explain or follow, ensuring the money is extracted to the same bunch of bidders.

This effort is utterly dreadful.

I started off from the press release on GOV.UK (as linked in OP and which is a paragon of virtue in web design) and followed the "Free AI foundations training" link and it all went south rather rapidly.

Its bold, brash and horrible. It does look like a set of links and its not immediately obvious where you start or what to do with it.

There are a few things that might be hyperlinks but the large weird rounded cornered sort of press me perhaps if you dare but I'm a bit flat and might kick your dog thing that might be a control or not but I'm purple and have an arrow ... ooh go on ... click me. Clicking around that area does move on to the next step which is just as obtuse.

I do hope that clears things up!

Just log in and see the courses. There are many, and some really good ones.