We were benefiting from stacked pull requests in Phabricator for a decade before "AI" was a thing. Having well scoped commits that can be individually actioned by distinct sets of reviewers has always been extremely useful.

Meh. Stacked PRs (where a PR is already a stack of commits, and reviewers can perhaps communicate with each other to coordinate scope/responsibility) are a bit like tab groups in the browser when tabs, multiple windows, and workspaces already existed for maintaining organization. This new feature clearly scratches an itch for some users but creates more complexity (yes, even if you don't interact with it) for people already comfortable with the status quo.

We did these sorts of exercises in my high school social studies class, in Ohio, back in 2002ish. I fear it may have been instructive to some of my classmates rather than warning them of the inherent evils.

  Location: California
  Remote: Yes
  Willing to relocate: no
  Technologies: Python, Rust, SQL, fullstack
  Résumé/CV: https://amethyst.cat/resume
  Email: amethyst@n7.gg

Senior engineer with 13 years in FAANG and plenty of experience working on core Python developer tooling, build infrastructure, and backend services. Most recently at Astral working on Ruff. Looking to bring my broad expertise to any company with a human-focused mission that won't require me to use AI agents to get my work done.

3) recipient stores decrypted content in plain text and backs that up in well-known cloud storage systems

Is it really holding them "accountable" when the settlements are for laughably small amounts, like <1% of a single day's profit?

No one else is doing anything. So it's something.

If it's anything like Facebook, the side entrances (which always had guards sitting by them anyways) were all converted to alarmed fire exits. So the fire marshal would still be happy, but it was far less convenient for employees.

It works pretty well for Apple

Not on desktop. They are losing market share to chrome year over year.

tools like dataclasses and pydantic would like to have a word...

*parts of the Bay Area. I'd say the majority of areas are still monopolized by Comcast, including my neighborhood of course.

If you haven't already, check to see if either Google Fiber or Monkeybrains is available in your area. Last I checked, the regs are still in place that prevent landlords from denying you access to an ISP of your choice.

Google Fiber isn't rolled out to most of the bay area. Monkeybrains is wireless with speeds significantly slower than what Comcast offers me. I've checked just about every wired ISP possible, and Comcast is the only option that services my neighborhood.

And FWIW, I own my house in the east bay — I am the landlady ;)

> Google Fiber isn't rolled out to most of the bay area.

I'm aware. And it's my understanding that -sadly- much of the Google "Fiber" deployment in the area is a WISP, just like Monkeybrains is. Quite a while back, Google Fiber bought Webpass and continued doing WISP deployment in the SFBA under the Google Fiber brand. (Because it's politically dreadfully hard to run fiber optic cables in the area.)

If you haven't contacted Monkeybrains for a minimum and expected speed quote at your site in a year or five, it's worth doing it again. It's my understanding that they aperiodically upgrade the hardware in their core network as well as the sort of hardware that they deploy at customer sites.

Monkeybrains' down-to 100/100 service is -on paper- far, far slower than the up-to 1400/40 service I was getting from Comcast, but the actual, delivered speed that I'm seeing from Monkeybrains varies between 300mbit and ~1000mbit (sustained) depending on what other folks are doing on their network. [0] I'm in a fifty-apartment building, so it's possible that they've installed faster gear on my roof than they install in smaller (or single-family) buildings. Reports on the Internet seem to be somewhat mixed, with some single-family buildings reporting ~1gbit service, and others reporting ~45mbit.

[0] Typical prime-time speed is something like 400mbit. Off-hours speed is frequently very close to 1gbit. The only time I've seen the minimum speed was when I had a poorly-crimped Ethernet cable between my router and the rest of my LAN that would intermittently only link up at 100mbit.

Seconding monkeybrains - they can usually get to houses that the other ISPs can't/won't service, and speed is pretty spiffy

In markets where Comcast has actual real competition, they "include" the unlimited data (aka no cap) with no extra charge when you sign up for their gigabit plans.

You pay for their highest tiered and highest bandwidth plan and they have the audacity to impose a cap making that bandwidth work against you? Crazy. My household internet usage is quite modest, nothing anyone on HN would call data intensive—casual video streaming being the lion's share, and I blow out 1TB every month without fail.