Not original commenter but the reality with zig is a little in between being simply convention vs. a language requirement. Is it a language requirement? no.
However, there's no global allocator in zig. You simply cannot call the language's equivalent of malloc() because it doesn't exist - at least not as a global symbol. That leaves you with three choices:
1) Define a global allocator; is a valid choice and would make a zig program more like C, C++ or Rust in terms of not having to think about scope-level allocation patterns
2) Pass an allocator into that scope (this is the community convention)
3) Create/instantiate an allocator itself inside that scope
(1) would be valid, though may not be idiomatic; global allocator like malloc becomes an opt-in
(2) Expensive and inefficient for most scopes, though not all.
(3) cheap, idiomatic but potential for noise/boilerplate
> While this request was being processed, the NAS received a message for a higher priority activity
to be undertaken which resulted in the squawk code allocation being paused while the system
processed the higher priority message. Switching between different activities in response to
prioritised requests is a normal function of the system; however, when the processing of the
squawk allocation request resumed, the software defect meant it did not resume correctly and the
resulting output was corrupted.
This seems to be more focused around predicting when a budget will be exhausted and taking gradual steps to reduce costs as the budget runs out, rather than a global hard cap.
I.e it’s unclear how this works with per-request billing - if I set a budget of $20, then immediately spam $40 worth of S3 GET requests, will 50% of those requests be blocked or will I be charged $40?
I doubt they’ve added a globally consistent billing/charge counter to the S3 read path, so either I get charged $40 or AWS eats the additional $20.
> What if you are an American who is not interested in projecting power across the globe? What if you would like to stop spending 1/3 of your budget on the military?
What do you think the second, third and fourth order effects of this would be for you?
I’m not sure that follows. You’re assuming that all those claims have the same weight, without considering the size, jurisdiction, reputation or even the general vibe of the company making that claim.
If you factor that in, then there are clearly different tiers: one you can trust, and one that may well just be saying that to increase market share with little reputational or legal consequences if they are found to be lying.
Yes I sometimes think the "don't train on my data" is actually a good signal for "this data/person is probably better to train on because they want to keep something private". The whole copyright system should have stopped these guys from training on everyone's data and it did not, if you think they care about the privacy checkbox I think you're dreaming personally, based on their past behavior.
If we say that nations can have enemies then it stands to reason that we can also say that they have friends.
You can of course be needlessly reductive and say that friendship is just two temporarily, mutually aligned self-interested parties, but… yeah. That’s pretty verbose. And not even correct.
Breach yes, but if they cannot 100% sure identify if your data was given out falsily, then they cannot say. They're not allowed to disclose that they provide your information to LE. So they can only inform you directly if they're 100% sure the specific information request response was sent to false entity. This is very hard to do.
Trying to find a way to tip toe around KYC, whilst keeping their customers safe, has also turned out to only use insanely stupid methods, though. So why did they already do that?
FYI it turns out that humans are pretty bad at comparing faces to ID documents. Like, really quite bad.
Automated methods, like the ones Revolut use, are significantly more effective at KYC than a Jane Doe working a 9-5 at a bank. In no way is it “tip-toeing around KYC”, and while really unfortunate leaking a selfie is pretty low down on the list of “bad stuff a bank could leak”.
The implication that the solution to this is to somehow convince your direct competitors to do inferior in-person KYC for you is the most ridiculous thing.
>The implication that the solution to this is to somehow convince your direct competitors to do inferior in-person KYC for you is the most ridiculous thing.
People work with their competitors all the time (see Netfix vs Amazon). Whats ridiculuous is the claim that a scammer would prefer to show up physically at a bank and risk being exposed instead of operating remotely.
>leaking a selfie is pretty low down on the list of “bad stuff a bank could leak”.
don't some of them require a selfie while holding legible official documentation?
> Whats ridiculuous is the claim that a scammer would prefer to show up physically at a bank and risk being exposed instead of operating remotely.
Of course they wouldn’t prefer to show physically. What does that mean though? Are you saying no scammers showed up physically to banks, therefore banking fraud rates are less? Do you have a source for that?
> don't some of them require a selfie while holding legible official documentation?
You can of course do KYC as stupidly as you like (zoom calls anyone?) - Revolut (and their providers) obviously separate document presentation from the liveness check (and fyi this is a short video, not a selfie. The selfie they are talking about is just a capture from the video)
Is your argument supposed to be more convincing because you added the word "patently"?
>What does that mean though?
It means that when you find a way to bypass purely online identity verification checks executing fraud at scale is easier than the physical alternative. As you would say, this is patently obvious.
reply