I understand NDAs are a thing, but I still don't think I'm too comfortable with the idea of letting a bunch of third-party people look at a bunch of my internal information. And I understand this is targeting startups a lot more than large established companies. But to me that's even more concerning because as a startup you're really trying to move fast and hoping someone doesn't beat you to the punch, and you're handing a bunch of people you don't know how much of your secret internal information, and hope that they don't go talking to other people about it.
I think most engineers (and execs) overvalue secrecy.
My limited experience is that access to your code is really not that valuable to competitors. Code might be valuable to hackers wishing to targeting you, presuming your business is a valuable target.
Most startups are too busy finding product market fit than trying to worry about sharing 'secret information' (your actual secrets shouldn't be in your repo anyways).
Well, firstly input.get("foo", {}).get("bar", default) is a bit nicer, imho.
Python exceptions are only slower on the exception. They are almost exactly the same speed on success.
LBYL forces you to look for all the ways in which you might leap. EAFP lets you handle even unexpected conditions. The classic use case is checking if a condition exists, then doing the thing, except the condition changed between check and run. So you gotta catch anyways.
I've been moving away from this actually and towards a rust-like Result[T, Exception]. I'm using the package called "result". For fastapi api_request -> handler -> some_func_chain -> return response_to_client patterns, if something barfs, you normally get a 422 and useless "Internal server error". It's far simpler imho to map over some Results and then pack the error(s) into a more useful response.
Your example will throw a KeyError if "input" doesn't contain "foo", and an AttributeError if "foo" is some unexpected data type that doesn't have keys().
I find the attitude here from many people interesting. When I look at a bunch of rust communities, like the rust reddit or the rust discord, they are all cheering about this. But there seems to be so much hatred for AWS here that people would rather just use this as another chance to take swipes at AWS.
Ignoring the fact AWS contributes code/development to the project, they are also helping fund/finance parts of it and basically offer a bunch of free hosting to the Rust team.
Eh, I think it varies. All of the FAANG are such a huge gap of eachother.
About 6 years ago, Netflix and Google offered me far and away the most. Facebook Was Closer to them but still lower. Apple and Amazon were on par with the lower end of the spectrum.
I recently moved to Austin and started interviewing again, so far, AWS offered better wages than Apple and Oracle, especially for the area (was comparable to Seattle wage even), and Netflix and Google basically demanded I move (Netflix to Cali, Google to NYC). And Facebook I don't know because I refuse to work there.
So I think mileage may vary. AWS seems to pay a "Flat Rate" across the board, so if you live somewhere other than NYC, Seattle, or SF, your pay will likely be better than the adjusted wages other companies factor in for smaller cities.
Although I ended up taking an offer for Salesforce because they blew everyone else away pay wise.
Because a bunch of people don't understand how the market work.
like all these people who think they're buying GME stock is going to save GameStop, cuz they somehow think that GameStop get some of the money from their stock purchases... So yeah I really don't know what the heck is going on in people's minds right now.
They don't think they'll save GameStop and almost nobody cares. They just want to see hedge funds lose money, and they've already lost billions so many have already objectively succeeded.
They also love to see Jim Cramer have meltdowns, which is almost every day now.
If you want to hate on /r/wsb that's fine (there are many legitimate reasons to hate that subreddit), but don't pretend to understand something you clearly don't.
Here's my hot take: they're victims of a pump-and-dump, only instead of enticed by the promise of a get-rich-quick scheme, they're experiencing groupthink while people encouraging and controlling this narrative are running away to the bank.
There is definitely a ton of shilling on /r/wsb and people outside thinking there is any single collective entity are ridiculously wrong.
Some people are pushing pump and dumps to make money. Some are ignorantly following along. Some genuinely treat it like a gambling addiction and enjoy it.
The GME thing though is unique, and there really is a narrative to hurt hedgies (in addition to all of the above).
>they've already lost billions so many have already objectively succeeded
Hedge funds lost billions to the original WSB actors who wanted to profit from a short squeeze. The activist investors of GME were just handing the hedge funds more money.
Jim Cramer is entirely a performer now. It's his job to put on a show and have meltdowns.
Hedge funds make money by having better information than their opponents. When buy and HODL appears on national news, you know that hedge funds are accounting for this in their strategy. It's naive to assume that activist investors could hurt them at this point.
That was the narrative a month ago before Melvin announced losing billions, so much they actually required billions in emergency capital. "We've closed our positions. Now please sell GME."
'The hedge funds are smarter' is as stupid as 'the VCs know better.' It's a narrative they have to push to stay relevant. Otherwise they'd just point towards their balance sheets to shut people up.
It's theoretically impossible for hedge funds, in aggregate, to outperform the market.
You're assuming that hedge funds trade like self-professed WSB autists rather than professionals. There is a difference in being stupid and being completely nonsensical. You don't ask stochastic calculus interview questions, and simultaneously risk your entire holdings on HODLing all your shorts.
> We've closed our positions. Now please sell GME
Nobody would expect anyone to behave that way. Hedge funds have clients and need to reassure them that they aren't going to lose all their money. Any rational investor knew that Melvin could have opened up new short positions after GME had skyrocketed.
Hedge funds may not be smart enough be beat the market, but they're certainly smarter than a group of people who learned what a "short" is, after the squeeze.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Everything you say is a denial of reality.
> Nobody would expect anyone to behave that way. Hedge funds have clients and need to reassure them that they aren't going to lose all their money. Any rational investor knows that Melvin could be opening up new short positions after GME had skyrocketed.
I don't care what people expected. I'm telling you what happened. And Melvin lost money. Obviously some hedge funds made money too, but you are specifically defending Melvin's position wrt GME.
> Hedge funds may not be smart enough be beat the market, but they're certainly smarter than a group of people who learned what a "short" is, after the squeeze.
This is why hedge funds lost money in the first place. Your denial is the fuel that continues to make /r/wsb successful, so honestly I find it refreshing. You want to believe you/they are smarter. That's it. You have no data to back up your claim. If you were right, GME would never have popped a second time and it would be trading for less than 1/10 its current price. You can call it irrational all you want, this opportunity is making people money that reject your thesis.
I'll continue to bet my money on my thesis and so far I have been ridiculously successful (far more than I was making at FAANG). I've already pocketed enough to retire so I'm not concerned about volatility. I encourage you to invest your money however you see fit. I'll do the same. So far it's working great for me.
> you are specifically defending Melvin's position wrt GME.
You need some reading comprehension lessons. That's not what I'm saying at all. The people who made money off the GME squeeze aren't the same people on a moral crusade against hedge funds. DeepFuckingValue bought GME because he performed thoughtful analysis and determined it to be undervalued. Sticking it to hedge funds was just a nice bonus. A schmuck who bought GME at $420.69 did so because someone on the internet told them it would be the best way to get revenge on the hedgies.
> I've already pocketed enough to retire so I'm not concerned about volatility.
Do what you want. I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about the average joe who loses $1000 on GME, declares the market is rigged, and never invests their money again. If there's anything that will kill hedge funds, it would be increasing financial literacy, not short squeeze memes.
> I'm worried about the average joe who loses $1000 on GME, declares the market is rigged, and never invests their money again.
Isn't your entire argument that hedge funds are smarter investors, and therefore you cannot compete with them? And since hedge funds aren't accessible to people that aren't rich, doesn't that mean the market is rigged?
It sounds to me like you're upset that people are educating themselves about the market and drawing different conclusions than you want them to. It's their money and they can do what they want with it.
> Isn't your entire argument that hedge funds are smarter investors, and therefore you cannot compete with them?
I don't think that hedge funds are particularly smart, outside of convincing their clients of their value. I'm saying that hedge funds are smarter than "investors" that think that buying GME at $300 going to meaningfully hurt hedge funds in any way. I'm not upset at the people losing money. I'm upset at the people peddling these imagined narratives as facts, which ends up causing people to lose money.
> I'm upset at the people peddling these imagined narratives as facts, which ends up causing people to lose money.
I'm not really a fan of misinformation either, but I will defend people's right to share their opinions freely (except in extreme situations where it advocates violence).
This is hardly unique to /r/wsb though. I mean yeah, I wish most people there were better informed as well. But I'm not sure how to solve that problem.
In my opinion /r/wsb is a net positive, although it obviously has its problems. The signal to noise ratio is awful, and the amount of shilling going on is ridiculous.
I understand opposition to hedge funds, but it's not the case that they were all short GameStop. Some were long and made a lot of money by selling into the WSB fervor. Others were not especially interested but must have seen the price grow by 20x and seen a great opportunity to short it.
I have a high school friend who posted that they didn't care if they lost their entire investment, this was about sending a message. I'm not sure what that message was.
> Others were not especially interested but must have seen the price grow by 20x and seen a great opportunity to short it.
Near the peak I don't think there were shares available to short though, at least not publicly offered who knows what was available through Bloomberg chat.
There might not have been shares available to short but a hedge fund could still sell a lot of options. If you sold call options anywhere near the peak you could have easily closed your position by now and taken pretty much the entire sale price as pure profit.
Yes, those are very bad investing reasons. And while it feels like a game, they are investing with real money. It's not just entertainment. They will end up making different hedge funds richer, and will only end up poorer and more resentful in the end.
more accurately, they wanted to see one hedge fund lose money, others, and plenty of private equity firms like Silver Lake have made a killing because of the spectacle. And I'm sure Jim Cramer loves the attention too even if he has to play the enraged TV personality for a while.
They can get some of the money, indirectly, through an offering. The price on the secondary market drastically changes a listed company's fundraising prospects.
If I borrow a game from my friend in order to sell it to GameStop, anticipating the re-sale price will be lower then the trade in price, so I can give the game back to my friend and take a profit -- would be like short selling.
That's a specific type of shorting. In financial markets you can also enter swap agreements, or sell futures or call options. The key is that GameStop seeks to profit from price depreciation.
Just for fun we could imagine GameStop seeks to buy back every game it sells, and that games don't intrinsically decay because they're digital and the packaging is worth zero.
Come to think of it, if games are pre-ordered it's even closer to what could reasonably be considered a short.
Not to sound like a jerk but why do you think this would be some "OMG" response from AWS? This is not some sort of "hacking", this is a tool that is being used to detect whether you misconfigured API access to be overly permissive. The tools job is to find them and them "abuse" them. Its not like AWS is not aware of user misconfigurations. The issue is AWS does not provide tools to detect these very well. Tools like CloudAware also exist because of things AWS don't provide. Not like AWS isn't aware of the ability to make such tools, considering these are just crawling and attempting to use a series of already existing AWS calls.
The tool is great as a free tool and very helpful, but its also not like AWS doesn't already have the people smart enough to make something just as good, if not better. It just obviously not AWS's priority. They can just leave the blame on the user for not properly managing IAM permissions.
And? Thats not because "AWS" was like "OMG so smart", AWS is already well aware of this issue but lays the blame on "Shared Responsibility" and are likely annoyed that Salesforce, a partner of AWS< released this without communication.
Honestly, my guess is there was a lapse in Salesforce somewhere, where either legal or PR didn't check this because this likely goes against Salesforce and AWS NDA for their partnership. I worked as an AWS partner before, there are requirements that go into place before you can release stuff like this to the public. Plus, having worked with Salesforce as well, I assume they have a PR policy to not use the word "hacking" in tool names or description, especially in regards to partners. My company has similar rules for OSS stuff.
This was more of a bad PR / Legal issue. AWS is well aware that people misconfigure permissions...
And again... better tools and more popular tools already existed... This is not new
Many healthcare systems are a COBOL-dialect all the way at the bottom. Some of these had PHP layers shimmed in, when the web became a thing.
I've seen php scripts that shell out to .bat's, that interface with the COBOL engine. It's a mad world.
For context, a large amount of healthtech software was written in the 80s (kind of like fintech, the difference is that there's no competitive advantage to having better technology in health).
I showed someone from the Allscripts innovation group what I could do in an Elixir repl once, and his jaw hit the floor. Then I showed him how we wrote parsers. He said we'd never make it because we turned around new features too fast for anyone to trust us.
Haha, among the most popular EMR you'll find a snarl of Perl, PHP, VB, Mumps/M, C#, old Java, cobol, and several proprietary languages. There is a small number of people who die in the US every year do to medical mistakes attributable to software bugs.
Would it make you feel better to know your PID is being stored in a database language where the only data type is strings, and there is an intrinsic command to interpret any string as code?
How is this any different from PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox services? Not only do they get a cut of all of that revenue from those services and DLC, but the companies have to even pay for the right to make software for these devices. so are we going to start attacking Nintendo now? At some point I think a manufacturer should be allowed to manage this kind of stuff.
Those aren't general purpose devices, but also they've got a smaller userbase. iPhones and iPads have sold more than two billion devices. All the consoles combined probably do not come close. Especially in an anti-trust lawsuit, a bigger target is easier.
Paypal has its own issues. Such as disputes, its easier to dispute with my bank than to dispute with Paypal.
My Twitch account was accessed and the person made a whole bunch of purchases on my account. Twitch customer service basically doesn't exist, so I went to paypal. Paypals system throttled me when I tried to report each action.
With my bank, I can call a number, say "These are all fake" they instantly cancel and refund my money, and I can file chargeback / fraud paper work.
Paypal has a long ways to go customer service and customer experience wise still.
