Responded to someone else below: if you sign in using GitHub, you can get your own allotment of 5,000/req/hour. The public API only allows 60 request per hour, but since we're using Lambda, it actually shifts to different IP addresses depending on the invocation.
Sounds like maybe you should add caching in there, so at least the /explore and facebook/react works. I ended up rate limited before I could see a single repository.
So far the feedback has clustered around a few themes:
People want it to be significantly more proactive over time, things like root cause analysis, security-style probing, or guided investigations rather than just visibility.
There’s interest in going deeper on telemetry and using it to surface higher-level insights, not just raw data or links out to other tools.
A lot of people ask whether it can eventually write to environments. The direction that’s resonated most is doing this first for new or greenfield environments. For example, going from a prototype to a production-ready AWS setup in a more agentic way. For existing environments, trust and safety are still the gating factors.
My takeaway is that read-only context earns trust first, and write access has to be very deliberate and staged.
Hey everyone, I recently got started in machine learning and ran into a few hiccups setting up our infrastructure. This post shares how I finally got things working in the end.
The idea that strikes are intended to cost the company does not lend itself that workers can do anything that damages the company. Are workers allowed to blow up the trucks using TNT (as long as no one gets hurt)? Can they steal all the gasoline in the trucks and sell it on the secondary market? No.
Strikes are intended to lose the company money in a very specific way - by a lack of labor. They are not intended to lose the company money by intentional destruction of property (nor should they be intended to do that)
You sound like you're arguing with me, but all of the rules you described seem to suggest that what the strikers did in this case was legal. They didn't blow up anything or steal anything, they quit working at an inconvenient time.
Also, I think you're imagining a set of gentlemanly Marquis of Queensbury rules around strikes that don't exist. This isn't an elaborate ritual like the filibuster; labor dispute precedents are written in blood.
If you intentionally fill up a truck with material that destroys it and then leave it, that is property destruction. That is equivalent to blowing something up (the concrete expands and blows up the truck) in that it is property damage.
Another example to help you understand:
If I came into my office in the morning with a highly flammable liquid and put them where the sun shines in the afternoon, and then intentionally left for "striking" - the ensuing office fire would be property damage on my part.
> Did they make a mistake when they were hiring or did they make a mistake now when they are firing?
You cant believe both simultaneously.
No it's entirely plausible that hiring then was the right decision and firing now is the right decision. There's no universal law that says you must hire people for eternity.
Facebook literally fired people they hired a week prior.
Why do you feel the urge to make excuses for managerial incompetence.
Like when you are a worker, they must be scruitinised to make sure they arent lazy or incompetent, but the day you get promoted to executive you gain godlike immunity from criticism
It’s not up to you to decide if what the management did is right or wrong, it’s up to the shareholders. They own the company and they appoint the management. If they make bad decisions it’s up to them to replace them.
They do it indirectly via the board of directors, they are the representatives of the shareholders (akin to a representative democracy). It is a common scenario for the shareholders to vote in a new board to replace the existing management.
I'm aware that China's economic collapse has been continuously predicted for the last 30 years, but they nevertheless continue to produce more and more real commodities and infrastructure. Of course that doesn't hold a candle to our services-rent-IP-speculation economy here in the US.
Sure, central gov _chose_ to cracked on on the sector, but the denial is that will lead to doomer level of collapse portrayed in western media. Here's a recent primer on PRC land finance and why market remains resilient / impact on gov finance overblow.
The real denial is western analysts with little understanding of why real estate crack down won't lead to PRC collapse. At end of the day, realestate is about as wasteful as US extravagant health care spending in % terms. Inefficient sure, but not end of the world in terms of misallocation. Even less so when ~100m surplus/vacant housing units still not enough for 200m that needs to be rehomed to bring urbanization from 65% to 80% in next 20 years.
Also it seems to get rate limited, but good work.