Two major use cases I've used for this are distributed databases, so no coordination of series is required, and a specialized case of this, offline data creation for syncing at a later time.

Those sound sensible uses for them.

I think unfortunately the vast majority of people misuse them as opaque public identifiers and pks for a single db, which is what this article is talking about.

What's bad about using them as opaque public ids? The only information that's leaked is approximate time of creation which is moot for most applications.

Things like age of an account/record-in-an-account can help find "higher value" targets and/or "less secure"/"more likely to be currently retired/inactive" targets.

The article goes into a few reasons.

I read it. There's no convincing reason for most applications.

Indeed. There are a couple billion devices on the planet for which this is a common requirement.

I believe pip-chill still operates on packaged installed into the environment. This project seems to derive from the code itself, even if no packages are installed in the current environment.

But not having to ship the GC could be a great benefit.

Outrage is profitable, it drives engagement, and encouraged by these platforms algorithms. And when everyone sees so much outrage all the time, it normalizes it on the platform so even if you're not seeking income from it, that's the default stance.

It feels backwards to me from a purely linear time perspective, you have an input, transform it, diff would be the patch, to the desired output.

The "diff" appears to be backwards (it's subtracting what prettier would emit, and adding back the original).

The red represents what would Prettier emits, and the green represents what Biom e emits. If you think that's unclear, feel free to send a PR to help us make it clearer.

This was intuitive to me, especially because it's in a section titled "Differences with Prettier".

The diff is between the test cases’s expected output (red) and the utility’s current output (green).

FLCL was created by much of the same team as NGE, so that makes sense!

Back in ~2000 when FLCL was fresh, a common quote was that FLCL was NGE team (and Production IG's EoE team) taking a very necessary step into absurd, to decompress from having worked on NGE.

Since the abstraction is NFS for access, I wonder what the advantage over EFS is. Or more, why not just leverage this under EFS if it was a straight improvement. Compression and snapshots seem like some of the biggest wins over current EFS.

EFS performance is garbage compared to FSx for most things. They serve different purposes.

Compression and snapshots indeed are the largest improvements I see, as well as an order-of-magnitude higher performance. If your applications already rely on ZFS snapshots, filesystems, quotas, reservations, compression, etc. - this is a pretty huge release as it appears to enable a convenient multi-reader workflow without significant administration headaches.

I thought JAMF was Apple Only Ecosystem as well. So it's a lateral movement from the perspective of heterogeneous set of devices, but if you had to go with Apple or third party, given the same features and limitations, most would go first party.

> What’s the point of downloading songs for offline use if you can’t even navigate to them?

So you can listen to them without consuming potentially expensive mobile data.

I understand the point of the downloading media over wifi rather than mobile data. What I'm saying is that once I'm "offline" I can't navigate to a screen where I can click play on them