tiramichu
It's good practice to run the deployment pipeline on a different server from the application host(s) so that the deployment instances can be kept private, unlike the public app hosts, and therefore can be better protected from external bad actors. It is also good practice because this separation of concerns means the deployment pipeline survives even if the app servers need to be torn down and reprovisioned.
Of course you will need some kind of agent running on the app servers to be able to receive the files, but that might be as simple as an SSH session for file transfer.
Yes, exactly that.
Sure, but having a hands-off pipeline for it which runs automatically is where the value is at.
Means that there's predictability and control in what is being done, and once the pipeline is built it's as easy as a single button press to release.
How many times when doing it manually have you been like "Oh shit, I just FTPd the WRONG STUFF up to production!" - I know I have. Or even worse you do that and don't notice you did it.
Automation takes a lot of the risk out.
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the program at all =)
Modern webapp deployment approach is typically to have an automated continuous build and deployment pipeline triggered from source control, which deploys into a staging environment for testing, and then promotes the same precise tested artifacts to production. Probably all in the cloud too.
Compared to that, manually FTPing the files up to the server seems ridiculously antiquated, to the extent that newbies in the biz can't even believe we ever did it that way. But it's genuinely what we were all doing not so long ago.
I see the sculptor was flattering, and portayed him as in his younger and less chubby days.
Very nice :)
This is the first time I've seen a doll house which is so super-shallow like that. I'm assuming that was decided based on where it was going to be placed, so it wouldn't intrude on where you walk. Super practical. All the play-fun of a deeper one, but a fraction of the space!
I don't have high hopes either.
Some things are very much products of their time, and you can't reliably repeat what made that formula work as well as it did.
Sure, I was there then. I was on Facebook right in the beginning, when you needed a university email address to even sign up.
So that's true, but it's also true to say that early Facebook wasn't the same as modern Facebook. Early Facebook was - as the name suggested, a place to connect with friends, share pictures and plan events. You'd probably check it once a day to see what was happening, but that was it. And your home feed would be a direct and unfiltered view of what all your friends posted, in the order they posted it, without bias. And you could easily catch up on everything that had happened and then you were finished.
It's the birth of the algorithm and infinitely scrollable tailored content feeds that really defines what social media has become.
This and mobile Internet have really gone hand-in-hand. The algorithm has made us want to be scrolling all the time, and mobile Internet has made it possible .
I agree.
OPs answer of saying that WiFi and phone Internet changed the world is correct, but it's not specific enough or the full truth of the matter.
If we had the Internet and modern phones but the only sites that existed were those from 2002, we'd be living in a very different world.
Mobile Internet is the enabling technology, but if social media didn't exist we'd probably leave our phones in our pockets most of the time.
Yes - by most definitions. It's powered by user-generated content and is based on interaction between users through engagement with that content, which is voted and scored.
There is a difference which I personally feel makes reddit less harmful than other social media, however, which is the algorithm - or lack of it.
In most social media, the algorithm exists to continually serve people the exact content they engage with in a constant feed, which is IMO the most socially damaging part of social media because it creates endless doomscrolling, toxic echo chambers, promotion of sponsored content, and a whole raft of psychological problems in users.
The Lemmy homefeed is more organic, and scrolling through 'all' you see content genuinely from everywhere, in a less curated way based on upvotes, not individual algorithmic tailoring. And that's maybe not as "engaging" but it's far less damaging.