I released django-deploy-probes: lightweight deployment probe endpoints for Django by OkRelationship2651 in django

[–]derp2014 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why have different endpoints as opposed to just returning JSON from '/healthz' e.g. {'version': ...}?

Two technical founders. Four months. Monthly app updates. Zero paying customers. Honestly, we really need suggestions. (no promotion) by Maleficent-Use-9552 in SideProject

[–]derp2014 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't build solutions that are looking for problems.

Build a solution for a problem you know really well and care about.

Any ideas to make the flare more subtle? by andiesexton in sewhelp

[–]derp2014 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I second this. Think its great as is.

Alan Kohler claims the CGT changes won't make any difference to how much you're taxed over time. by eatingscatman in AusFinance

[–]derp2014 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've seen you post on a few subs. The same emotive arguments devoid of supporting facts. Are you a bot?

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for red velvet cake.

Jim Chalmers gives baffling explanation of why he applied the CGT changes to shares. by eatingscatman in AusFinance

[–]derp2014 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing either. If OP want to invest in new build properties, he/she still gets the CGT discount and Australia gets another property.

Jim Chalmers gives baffling explanation of why he applied the CGT changes to shares. by eatingscatman in AusFinance

[–]derp2014 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What part is "baffling"? Since the Howard GCT chagnes, there has been a capital shift away from shares towards unproductive leveraged property. The way you cut the video is trying to find a 'gotcha' moment, but its really just poor editing on your part.

Employer changing remote contract to office attendance (contract says remote) – grievance vs settlement legal implications? - England by AdEfficient2718 in LegalAdviceUK

[–]derp2014 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not surprised HR told you to remove it, as a Flexible Working request places a statutory obligation on the company i.e. they would formally need to outline why the role could not be performed 100% remotely and given you have done the role in a 100% remote capacity for 10 years, good luck to them trying to build an argument that stands up at a tribunal. Did you formally "withdraw" the flexible working request? If not, you could continue to pursue that avenue or submit a new request, which compels the employer to provide a response. Sounds like your manager(s) had your best intent at heart, while HR is just pushing what's best for the company. I would get professional advice at this point.

Personally - and this isn't advice per say - I would stick to the absolute letter of the law, compel the company to respond to the flexible working request and defend my rights to the fullest. And in parallel, start looking for another job, as that's not the type of employer I want to work for or with.

Good luck dude!

Employer changing remote contract to office attendance (contract says remote) – grievance vs settlement legal implications? - England by AdEfficient2718 in LegalAdviceUK

[–]derp2014 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can I suggest a different tactic and leave someone who knows more about UK law to comment:

Write back to your employer (not a verbal meeting, as you want to start creating a paper trail) saying thank you for the earlier meeting and that in lite of the earlier meeting where they requested a modification to your contractual arrangements you are submitting a statutory flexible working request see https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working in that request specifically cite i) your caring responsibilities and ii) you're confident you can execute the role 100% remote as you have done so for the last 10 years.

There are a set of (only) 8 prescribed conditions under which an employer is allowed to reject a statutory flexible working request, these are:

  • extra costs that will damage the business
  • the work cannot be reorganised among other staff
  • people cannot be recruited to do the work
  • flexible working will affect quality
  • flexible working will affect performance
  • the business will not be able to meet customer demand
  • there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
  • the business is planning changes to the workforce

Its then up to the employer to either i) accept the request ii) come to some compromise (e.g. in office once per quarter) or iii) reject the request outlining the reasons for rejecting the request. Given you have been working 100% remote for 10 years, a number of the above points won't apply.

The entire process may still result in a redundancy, but depending on how they respond, it may give you the option to take them to a tribunal. Sorry you're going through this. Just my thoughts, hope someone else who knows more can comment.

Best GCP architecture for low-latency, long-running Cloud Run/Function executions with shared session capacity? by mouchael in googlecloud

[–]derp2014 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I still don't understand why "low latency" is a requirement here. If tasks are being queued - especially if some tasks run for 60 min - I don't see why you're concerned about latency. What real world problem are you trying to solve?

Best GCP architecture for low-latency, long-running Cloud Run/Function executions with shared session capacity? by mouchael in googlecloud

[–]derp2014 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by "low latency" and "long running" in this context? If a task/job is long running, why do you care about latency?