Self hosted GitLab with a self-hosted LLM Provider connected to GitLab powering GitLab Duo. This should ensure that the data never gets outside your network, is never used in training data, and still allows you/staff to utilize LLMs. If you don’t want to self host an LLM, you could use something like Amazon Q, but then you’re trusting Amazon to do right by you.
A lot of folks here are saying price. They’re not necessarily wrong, list price IS an issue. However Ford dealers have implemented huge incentives to sell them. Leasing and Financing, one dealer offered me 20k off MSRP to buy one.
I would actually argue price isn’t the issue but is an easy low hanging fruit we can blame.
When people buy trucks they do so for security mentally and otherwise. Americans buy trucks to be able to haul around something once a year, to have enough room for the family, to tow things, to go on long road trips, to go over landing, to have the ability to go off-road as needed.
Much of America is rural and has dirt roads or other light infrastructure. During storms trees fall on roads and have to be moved or gone around. I lived 10 minutes from an urban center and my house had one road to/from. Once every 6 months a tree would fall on the road and block access.
Tl;dr people buy trucks for peace of mind, their capability, and rare events that can affect them. Because vehicles are such a huge purchase they buy more incase they need it.
The lightning is neither capable nor offers peace of mind due to its limitations in range, towing, and charging station availability.
I bought a used F-150 Lightning with 1000 miles on it. I paid $21k under the sticker price. It was still expensive. I have no range concerns but I'm mostly in the city.
More importantly than being outraged over the biometrics invasion (which you should 100% be outraged over). You should be more outraged at the hypocrisy.
Las Vegas runs a fusion center which has some of the most invasive monitoring, capturing, metrics/data collection of most agencies.
They do the following:
- license plate recognition on every intersection.
- microphones through the city which listen to conversations
- drones which fly into and above people’s back yards.
- Weaponized drones, ie fly drones into windows to break them, or people to stop them
- thermal imagine of people’s houses and backyards.
- facial ID against social media from cameras, as well as NCIC and more.
- they have fake social media profiles they use to follow pages, groups, individuals suspected of bad behavior
- they purchase PI from brokers en masse and run against it.
- they probably have more cameras than almost any city in the US.
- they have taps into all casinos cameras and microphones.
… these are the same officers who are upset over the new facial ID policy.
Here’s a brief news clip. But I also know these details because I’ve seen them first hand.
This isn’t 100% true. Security in Nevada and California are licensed and have what’s known as “powers to arrest”.
They can not grab you and physically remove you. This is called battery and it’s illegal. You can actually be charged with a crime as a security officer for this. Along with fined and lose your license.
What actually happens is them physically restraining you is a form of citizens arrest. They then hold you and call police to take you.
The issue with trespassing is it can only be charged if the individual continually refuses to leave. This means the moment they choose to leave, you must let them.
If in the act of being arrested they fight or assault people. They can be arrested for that. If they are violating the peace or committing another crime, they can be arrested for that.
However if it’s SOLELY trespassing. The moment they agree to leave; you need to let them leave.
The casinos do have police officers inside them and some security officers ARE deputized. A security officer can have powers to arrest as a security officer and powers to arrest as a police officer. They are entirely different things and have different levels of responsibility and liability.
Congrats on this - It looks really good. We’ve been evaluating documentation tooling for our company. We’re in a weird regulatory environment where the documentation is created by someone else, but reviewed and approved by another person.
I bring this up because a feature that could set you apart from others is the concept of a “merge request” for documentation. Where someone can make a document, another can modify it and submit changes for review.
GitBook has this but it lacks in some other key ways for us.
I’ve also always wanted this, but what I’ve realized after noodling on it a while is I’d really just prefer a way to use git, and push markdown documents to the Notes System.
I dont want a different system handling edits reviews and merges.
I just want CD to send my docs from git to a system that can properly host / give me the Doc-related features I need.
This would be a great feature. We have a similar problem whereby there are official versions of documents which have been through a review process and the only way to work on the next version on Confluence is to have a separate working copy of the page which pollutes the search and gets messy very quickly.
Confluence 100% supports the situation you’ve described.
The way I’m reading this is that you need to have a publishing workflow, or a document approval workflow, which Confluence can do. At one of my jobs, we wrote it with CQL.
a repository of markdown files with a custom viewing software that supports the syntax and renders it for readability or acts as a wysiwyg editor would work well: I do this personally, with Obsidian.md, where my vault directory is a git repository. a hosted web interface should be able to do something similar.
Git is a registered trademark of neither GitLab or GitHub. Both GitLab and GitHub have negotiated the usage of the Git trademark. Provided they follow the rules set out for them, they can continue to use it.
As an employee of one of them I personally bought the git.new domain. I paid a good chunk for it and was going to build a new project template builder on it. I got.. talked too by legal about this. Because as an employee it actually violated one of those rules.
I’m going to be honest. This says alot more about your business practices, empathetic abilities, and your leadership than obesity ever says about a persons character and discipline.
The good news is, with an attitude like this, you won’t have to worry about hiring anyone.
I’ve simply observed in life that people who are gluttonous have a lot of other issues. Even without exercise it’s simply calories in, calories out. Eating a reasonable amount is easier than eating a lot.
"Calories in, calories out" is basically a useless phrase, implying that the human response to food and exercise is as easily modelable as a physics problem on a test. Especially how you seem to connect it directly to "gluttony," as though that were the main predictor of a person's weight.
The human body responds in many complex ways to your diet, activity, food intake, etc. Different people absorb variable amounts of calories from the same food, depending on ethnicity, age, type of food, when it's consumed, their microbiome composition, whether they're dieting, the weather outside, etc, etc. And yet, the state of the art is still to "calculate" calories by just setting food on fire and measuring the heat released.
That’s all cope. If you were on a desert island you’d lose weight, plain and simple. No amount of dancing around the issue or nonsense “scientific” studies will refute this fact.
Furthmore trying to normalize obesity is absolutely morally evil and wrong. You are killing people with one of the top killers of humanity - heart disease caused by obesity, lack of exercise, and poor diet. Trying to explain away obesity as a “medical issue” and ignore the 100% self caused aspect is atrocious and part of the reason why so many are sick and dying of this 100% preventable malady.
Do you think Gabe Newell or the countless other successful obese people are somehow immune to this complete lacking in self control? Perhaps they are just puppets controlled by little aliens?
Yes, if they were forced at gunpoint to eat right and exercise they would be healthy, plain and simple. There is no arguing around this. They are simply physically lazy.
I can’t believe I have to point this out. Folks who lived in times of food shortages.. still could end up being obese.
In addition to that, being obese/overweight isn’t always “unhealthy”. Just like being skinny, isn’t always healthy. It’s an individual persons health, and that’s between them and their doctor. There are countless variables in that equation.
And you frankly have no say in that, nor should you judge them for anything in their personal life related to health. Doing so is immoral and prejudicial.
No, being obese is never healthy. Somehow society has been brainwashed into thinking obesity is normal and healthy. Completely wrong. I highly recommend exercising and being in shape. You can eat more calories if you exercise more, if you just like eating a lot of food.
You have low social and emotional intelligence. They’re more important skills to have than you might think.
You might think your bluntness is charming or provides utility ultimately. It doesn’t. It’s offensive, inconsiderate and ineffective if trying to actually persuade anyone (except perhaps yourself).
Further your notion of how weight gain is correlated with “physical laziness” is deeply reductive and indicative of a lacking in basic empathy.
Basically, you’re being an ass hole. It would not surprise me if you were diagnosed with some sort of personality disorder like NPD. Hope that goes well for you in life.
No I have a great life full of friends and family and success. Being obese is a physical ailment, such as being addicted to heroin, except it’s donuts and cheeseburgers and pizza. It will kill you. I have family who are extremely obese with all of the usual ailments associated. It’s very sad and 100% preventable, and recoverable. But they would rather die I guess.
We are coming full circle here. You have rightly acknowledged the link between heroin addicts and food addicts. We don’t expect anyone to hire heroin addicts, they need to find treatment and therapy before they would be considered employable. These are very risky, potentially dangerous people. However we as a society look around and see obese people everywhere, suffering from the same addictive tendencies. I think the crossover in personality traits is high between drug addicts and obese people. Physically fit people have a lot of positive characteristics and self discipline that lead them to being in shape. Therefore I will wait for the obese to get treatment for their addiction before I associate with them.
My point is that the decision to be obese, excluding other factors like disability or mental illness, is 100% on the person who is obese. Nothing is stopping someone from eating less and exercising. This is something that anyone can do, regardless of income level. You can eat fast food every single day of your life provided you exercise, count calories, and take a multivitamin - you simply cannot gain weight and you will indeed be healthy. Being obese is a personal decision, one that is lazy and will ultimately lead to an earlier death than would otherwise happen.
Why are disabled people excluded from responsibility of this "personal decision?" Disability does not prevent a person from eating less or exercising more.
A lot of disabled people lack arms and legs, or have asthma so bad they can barely walk up stairs, or other varied reasons they are unable to exercise. It depends on the disability. But for the large majority of people that truly have nothing preventing them from exercising and eating right other than willpower, they should realize how blessed they are, and what a privilege it is to exercise.
Like other prejudices, this can over/mistarget what you're aiming for. One of the most intelligent, driven, and charismatic people I've ever met was fat. Their discipline and character put everyone else's to shame, including mine. Whatever genetic/environmental quirk that made them succumb to eating more had ostensibly no connection to other aspects of their life.
Also,
> Eating a reasonable amount is easier than eating a lot.
isn't this disproved by the obesity epidemic? Evolution prepared us to desperately seek caloric abundance and sedentary lifestyles since those things were so rare in the past. Now that we have them constantly, expecting people to fight their wiring is like expecting clocks to run backwards.
I feel empathy for people who have issues they have no control over, such as disability, mental illness, etc. But obesity is a self control issue. Just as I don’t hire drug addicts because it is a risk, I choose not to hire obese people. It’s simply too risky.
While you’re both scientifically and pragmatically wrong that it’s “calories in, calories out”
More concerning than that is your belief that you are accurate and could never be wrong. That folks with obesity are simply tarnished with an inability to have self control.
You couldn’t be more incorrect. Furthermore, the fact you think an epidemic and issue that affects millions could be summed down into four words… well it’s troubling.
The larger the problem, the more difficult the cause and more evasive the solution.
Another commenter accurately pointed it out. Your prejudice is blinding you.
No it’s just people don’t want to lose weight. If they lived with me and allowed me to control their diet and exercise routine, they would be in shape. It’s a matter of will and they don’t have the will to be normal weight, if not physically fit.
I understand your perspective on this, and I’m certainly not saying it’s wrong. But there’s some background you should consider.
GitLab CE instructions used to be the default. Paying customers would find they installed GitLab CE by default and run it, and then want to use features. They’d have to install GitLab EE over it. Well if they’re a year or two behind in upgrades, that transition can be painful and require services.
This created alot of anger and frustration from enterprises who paid for GitLab or wanted to convert to paying for GitLab. The solution was simple; install GitLab EE by default per the instructions. Because FOSS folks will search out the free editions. Yet customers won’t; and they’ll get caught with the CE edition unable to migrate to EE.
The move wasn’t one built on bad faith to move people to paid versions; or somehow bury the CE versions. It was to reduce paid customer frustrations. Even now GitLab docs talk about running GitLab directly from source.
Let me pose a theoretical. Let’s say you’re a VP or Senior Director. One of your sibling directors or VPs is over a department and field you have intimate domain knowledge. Meaning you have a successful track record in that field both from a management side and an IC side.
Now, that sibling director allows a culture of sexual harassment, law breaking, and toxic throat slitting behavior. HR and the Organizations leadership is aware of this. However the company is profitable, outside his department happy, and stable. They don’t want to rock the boat.
Is it still “the domain of the petty” to have a plan to replace them? To have formed relationships to work around them, and keep them in check? To have enacted policies outside their department to ensure the damage doesn’t spread?
And most importantly to enact said replacement plan when they fuck up just enough leadership gives them the side-eye, and you push the issue with your documentation of their various grievances?
Because that… is a coup. That is a coup that is atleast in my mind moral and just, leading to the betterment of the company.
“Your best action is to walk away” - Good leadership doesn’t just walk away and let the company and employees fail. Not when there’s still the ability to effect positive change and fix the problems. Captains always evacuate all passengers before they leave the ship. Else they go down with it.
> “Your best action is to walk away” - Good leadership doesn’t just walk away and let the company and employees fail.
Yes, exactly. In fact, it's corruption of leadership.
If an engineer came to the leader about a critical technical problem and said, 'our best choice is to pretend it's not there', the leader would demand more of the engineer. At a place like OpenAI, they might remind the engineer that they are the world's top engineers at arguably the most cutting edge software organization in the world, and they are expected to deliver solutions to the hardest problems. Throwing your hands up and ignoring the problem is just not acceptable.
Leaders need to demand the same of themselves, and one of their jobs is to solve the leadership problems that are just as difficult as those engineering problems - to deliver leadership results to the organization just like the engineer delivers engineering results, no excuses, no doubts. Many top-level leaders don't have anyone demanding performance of them, and don't hold themselves to the same standards in their job - leadership, management - as they hold their employees.
> Not when there’s still the ability to effect positive change and fix the problems.
Even there, I think you are going to easy on them. Only in hindsight do you maybe say, 'I don't see what could have been done.' At the moment, you say 'I don't see it yet, so I have to keep looking and innovating and finding a way'.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding? For GitLab this should be doable by two different ways.
The first is merge trains, which merges requests one by one to prevent this exact outcome. You just have to force all deployments to be done via a merge request. That’s the downside.
The second being forcing a GitLab Runner to run one job at a time. Tag it as “deployer” then ensure all deployment jobs are marked as “deployer”. That runner will pick up deployment jobs one by one in order of first creation.
There's also a third way called resource groups [1]. We use that to ensure that we only run the newest job if we have multiple deployment jobs waiting for execution. This way even if we have multiple pipelines racing each other, only the last deployment job wins.
I was a bit confused when I first saw this in the context of deployment jobs.
If you go with oldest first and two or more prod jobs want to run, you are gonna have to wait for all the old deployments to finish unless you go to each one and cancel them, leaving only the latest one. This does prevent unorderd deployments from overwriting each other, but it's a pita.
If you go with newest first, old deployments will overwrite new ones unless you toggle the setting to prevent outdated jobs from running, by which case you'll be locked out of doing a rollback unless you regenerate a whole old pipeline.
It would make sense if they had a "newest only", where if you have one deployment running and 10 pending, by the time the current deployment finishes, gitlab would cancel all deployments except for the latest one. This way you don't have to wait for old deployments and you're free to do a rollback at any time. Bonus points if the cancelled jobs display a link to the latest job that was chosen from the queue.
> "It would make sense if they had a "newest only", where if you have one deployment running and 10 pending, by the time the current deployment finishes, gitlab would cancel all deployments except for the latest one. This way you don't have to wait for old deployments, and you're free to do a rollback at any time."
Hi, GitLab Team member here. This is exactly how GitLab functions when you use "newest first" process mode [1] with Prevent outdated deployment jobs enabled [2]. By default, pipeline job retries for deployment rollback is enabled, you can rollback to any of the failed old deployments, except where its disabled. [3]
Ah this is good. This had come in when I used it but I think the GitLab instance I used was a few releases out of date so wasn't available at the time.
We've been using it for a year, as we often had the problem that somebody would push an update after an initial publish of a branch, not stopping the first branch and then two or more deploy jobs racing each other with unpredictable results.
I think merge trains weren't a feature when I worked with GitLab, it was a while ago. This does certainly solve it, but at the cost of quite a different process. If what you're optimising for is time to release, merge trains add an overhead. At some point that overhead is worth it, but it depends on the team/product/etc.
Having just one runner be the deployer is an option too. I think we used hosted runners so not sure if this is possible in that setup? This would also make pipelines harder to optimise. Often there are many parts in pipelines that are safe to do in parallel, and only a few "critical sections" around which you want locking. This would solve simultaneous releases, but not the general case of the problem (which at least Jenkins and GitHub Actions manage ok).
GitLab always felt to me like Travis++, whereas systems developed later felt like they were built on fundamentally better primitives. Jenkins is a weird one because it has all of the features, can do all of these things, really quite well in many cases, but has a pretty bad developer experience and required a lot of maintenance to run a performant and secure install.
https://docs.gitlab.com/administration/gitlab_duo_self_hoste...
reply