Other than the low chance of you being targeted I would say only expose your services through something like Wireguard. Other than the port being open attackers won’t know what it’s for. Wireguard doesn’t respond if you don’t immediately authenticate.
There’s a little overlap with things like Terraform but it’s not as bad as if they bought the companies that owned Chef or Puppet.
Can’t believe that’s gone through. They took JBoss when they bought RedHat so now it doesn’t have to compete with Websphere and when they bought HashiCorp Openshift doesn’t have to compete with Nomad. At this rate they’ll buy CyberArk and then that’s no more competition with Vault.
If OP has a thrift store nearby it’s pretty likely they can get both for under $30.
This is actually great because not only does it share the hosting load but models occasionally get pulled from sites so they can be exclusive to some AI subscription service.
I haven’t looked into the built in features in a while but I think comfy needs to have more basic nodes. I’ve picked up workflows with dead nodes and it’s not easy to see what used to be there and fill in the gap. Sometimes it’s something complex like an animation node but I’ve had basic text box nodes go dead.
DebOps my dude.
In a similar situation. I was using Open Media Vault but it has some networking bug that I just can’t nail down or work around. I have to manually fix the networking every time it breaks. Otherwise I barely used OMV features and did most things through Docker. I’ll be switching to Diet Pi and probably Ansible unless I feel like learning Puppet.
Some segmentation stuff seems close but they only separate objects, they don’t add objects. Best workflow I can think of with minimal editing is doing I2I, creating a mask for the new object, then using the mask on the original image.
I feel like Arch is a Jeep.
Very good point. We often do one PR per story so people tend to think that’s a limit.
I have a rule about this (not that I don’t break it at times). I only refactor in an unrelated story if it doesn’t delay deliverables and existing tests cover the code.
And you’re generally right about tech that not being prioritized, but you should have a talk with your product manager/owner to strike a deal for some small percentage of your work to include tech debt. We were able to convince ours that it was otherwise affecting our velocity.
Last time I got this PR I was like, “Okay, I’ll do my best, but you asked the guy that has like 30 mins a day to actually focus and look at someone else’s code AND yours isn’t the only PR I’ll have to look at this sprint. Have fun reminding me about this for the next week.”
That wasn’t me, but that also used to be me. I learned to pick my battles, especially with complex code bases, and tried to keep scope creep in the name of improvement to like a dozen lines (provided it was fully tested).
I know just how you feel. I have two servers, a phone, and two laptops that all may need to intercommunicate at any given time. For this I use Warpgate: https://github.com/warp-tech/warpgate
There’s a tiny bit of a learning curve I feel but after setting up a couple connections you’ll get the hang of it. Teleport is a similar solution but I don’t like to use tools I don’t understand and it’s a bit more complex.
They’re very similar so you pretty much can’t go wrong. Podman, I believe, is more secure by default (or aims to be) so might run into more roadblocks with its use.
Good points. I never build libraries, only websites, so it didn’t really occur to me that the dependency types we’re mostly intended for that use case.
I use a pipeline to build and right now there’s one stage that just installs everything, then I have separate build and test jobs. The two main issues I’m trying to correct are the fact that npm takes ages to install dependencies (even with npm ci) and that I’m subject to security scans and I don’t want to be held up because of a vulnerability in my testing tools.
This isn’t exactly the case but yes, I would prefer to keep the dependency list as small as possible, mainly because I’m subject to security scans and I don’t want things to get held up because there’s a vulnerability in my linter.
The n100 and n200 have quite low TDP values for much better performance than a Pi.
This is the kind of AI stuff that really annoys me. Looking at one of the mutation examples I didn’t see anything that wouldn’t normally be tested by a typical mutation tool. You took a simple, idempotent process and you got an llm to do it slower, less accurately, and using more resources.
If you wanted to marry the two in a new and possibly useful fashion I would say use an llm to analyze the results of a standard mutation test and give guidance on what issues should be acted upon first. An off-by-one calculation could mean somebody loses a million dollars or it could mean a button is grayed out. Standard mutation tools don’t give you that context.