I legitimately put "Infinite Loop" in the chat box, and the response hung up. Refreshed and it was down. I know this was just a coincidence, but I can dream can't I?
This can usually be solved by coaching, not only for this person, but for the teammates who are spending more time answering questions.
For coaching the questioner, I ask them how they approach finding information, and recommend they time box their exploration, and only ask their question if they've given it a good try. I I also will describe my personal workflow to find answers when answering their questions.
For coaching the rest of the team, I often suggest they ask "what have you tried so far?" or "where have you looked so far?" before just giving an answer. This can help show knowledge gaps, and oftentimes the questioner will take another look and discover the answer themselves.
And yes, if they never get away from this behavior even after getting feedback multiple times, then that turns into a different sort of conversation.
This is great =). I have owned a large webhook delivery system myself, and considered starting a SaaS around it. I'm also a big fan of webhooks and I think there is definitely a market for this out there. Kudos to you for taking the plunge and launching!
Here's the only post I wrote for it that focuses on security, which is pretty critical for a webhook system https://www.easywebhooks.com/how-to-secure-a-webhooks-api. You might want to consider adding protection against Replay Attacks and support for Challenge-Response Checks if you do not already!
We already protect against reply attacks (we have a signed timestamp as part of the webhook), and I'm not sure what you mean by challenge-response checks. Do you mean things to protect against SSRF? If so, yeah, we also sign the webhooks in order to make sure they come from the right source.
A challenge response check will help ensure that the webhook consumer is actually using the webhook signature, and improve the likelihood that you are sending data to the right target. I saw a number of times that systems weren't verifying the data we were sending them came from us even though we had gone to all of this effort to help them :facepalm:.
Basically you periodically send a GET request to the target API with a token, and have them respond with the token encrypted with the same secret they'd use to decrpyt your webhook signature.
You could also consider sending dummy ping messages that may or may not have a valid signature (of course make sure this behavior is documented) that you would expect the target API to return a 4xx error if the signature is incorrect.
These extra steps are definitely not table stakes for a webhooks system, but could be enough to make sure the webhook event providers are being the best possible stewards of their user's data that they can =D. A lot of this complexity can also be wrapped by a client library you provide, which is a big win for everyone on its own.
Ah I get what you mean now! Interesting way to ensure they are actually doing the right thing! I think the ping with the bad signature to check they are actually verifying the webhook is much lighter weight, and almost solves the same problem. The one with the signed response is also interesting, but a bit harder to get people to actually implement.
That makes a kind of sense. The smaller the difference between two viewpoints, the harder it is to distinguish the difference. Its possible to argue forever and never see which is better/right.
CustomMade (http://www.custommade.com) is a great place to emulate this process, i.e find a craftsman/maker who can help you ideate and create great pieces of furniture, jewelry, and other crafted goods. Check us out if you're interested in buying custom and aren't sure where to start!
Is trading actually a good thing? I see people play and they seem open to trading for trades sake. Unless your opponents are making pointless trades to confuse, doesn't it just help their position?
Catan's alright, but it's too random to be really enjoyable. The strategy seems outweighed by getting lucky on rolls or draws.
Trading is definitely a good thing. I find that when placing settlements at the beginning it's crazy to try to get exposure to all 5 elements, but if you get really strong exposure to 3 of them you can trade for what you lack. Then you don't have to spread yourself too thin. Plus you know what people will do with what you trade them ... don't give up wood if you don't want people building roads.
Trading is good to increase own resources (I almost never trade 1:1, mostly 1:2, depending on how badly the other person needs my resources) or doing the inverse: getting down to 7 resources during another player's turn to prevent having to dump half of it if a 7 is rolled.
I also come from an Economics background, and am now a software engineer/budding data scientist. As I've delved more into machine learning topics, I'm amazed (though not surprised!) at how both academic and industry economists are still mostly focused on running OLS/logit/probit regressions, and not other classification techniques. My undergraduate thesis did use some computational models that sought convergence for dynamic & stochastic conditions, but that was definitely not the norm.
Macroeconomics and empirical industrial organization are leading the forefront in terms of theoretical and applied technical advances. You ought to look at discrete choice analysis sometime--great stuff.
I can't speak for industry economists, but the reason we academics tend to spend so much time with OLS/Logit/Probit is their flexibility and scalability.
Macro was my favorite subject! I was lucky enough to take the first year PhD sequence during my last year, which was my first taste of coding =D
I think in industry (anti-trust at least), they stick with the older models because their value has legal precedent, and using new methods would require some more legal hand waving by the attorneys.
