As stated in the second paragraph of TFA, the machine workloads get their own infrastructure identity. Each identity can have different policies and permissions.
Yes, exactly, a cloud agent always authenticates itself (via OIDC) as an agent (machine) identity, with the option for the identity of the human who launched it to ride along.
We then have the ability to enforce (extremely fine grained) policies based on that combined identity, plus any of the claims in the OIDC token (e.g., the repo URL), plus any of the data on the protocol itself (e.g., block non-read-only queries; redact anything sensitive).
There may be use-cases (and the RFC allows ignoring the SHOULD clause with enough reasoning), but GET does not have a request body as per specification, and a LOT of things drop it because of that (most notably - nginx! Also applies to HAProxy and Apache HTTP server afaik, but also a bunch of load balancers)
Yes, and they should also rewrite all available packages for Nix in Rust, along with the Linux kernel.
No, that's still not enough complexity! They need at least a thousand agents using trillions of tokens around the clock to get us the Nix and Rust slop we need.
When I disagree with the data: I will nitpick every last detail of methodology,
any cross-corroboration is an anecdote, suddenly I demand a-priori levels of
justification. All science is flawed anyways, it's not like mathematics, you
can't get absolute certainty, so why bother? You're always going to be making
base assumptions that can be challenged, you're necessarily going to abstract
out the territory, the map is flawed.
When I agree with the data: I will boast about the victories of science and
empiricism, we found the perfect set of natural abstractions that are necessary
and sufficient to map out the territory that carve at the joints of the
problem, any concern about assumptions is rebutted with generic "Well, we're
just pragmatists; we're not perfect, but clearly we're converging on the right
direction! You're clearly someone who just wants to nitpick and not get any
work done."
My experience with certain hackernews commenters in a nutshell.
This reminds me of a time in COVID-health response when certain scientists said their evidence was real evidence and yours was not.
"There's no evidence to prove xyz" then they would say, as your evidence was never as rigorous as theirs. And since they were proclaimed to be the only authorized scientists in the room, by authority of big governing bodies, they were right.
So people will see whatever evidence they want, and whine and complain to dig into their side as tribalistic creatures.
reply