I've never been an Apple fan, but they are the entire reason that "right to repair" is even required as a concept. I hate the whole company pretty deeply for that.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Without a navigation property, wouldn't a join be easier and faster?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Check your access logs for those IPs; odds are that you'll find multiple exploit attempt URLs pushed to your server by the Chinese traffic. They basically do Hail Mary attacks against every website all the time. I have a WAF on a slightly (but not terribly much) more trafficked website and the crap that I see from them is just remarkable.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Change control boards have nothing to do with security and everything to do with the non-technical Six Sigma crowd moving into the cybersecurity field. Those people are, of course, the actual baddies.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Gitlab Omnibus is pretty simple and it's a rockstar.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
If it was a nitroglycerine collection I could understand her concern. As is: it's her business how, exactly?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
All rumors started by the shadowy bidet industry.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Eh, you may well have it right; it's existed in many forms over the years. I think the original went with "incompetence" as well, but I have admittedly picked a version that reflects my own feelings. At any rate, it's an absolutely essential attitude when working in cybersecurity.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Now now, isn't suggesting problem decomposition a bit unfair? That requires more thought than "cOdEz PlZ!"
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
I replaced every light in the house 6 years ago and haven't had a single one fail. Oh, except the one outside that had a leak in the housing. I had to replace that one, once.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Python is not that language. It's basically psudeocode with a conditionally forgiving interpreter, provided that you don't try to use white space to format...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
You're highly unlikely to overrun an int for surveys.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
It depends entirely on the rule set that you're using. It's possible that you've got a content-type on the upload that ModSec doesn't like, or that you're using something other than POST to send a file and it doesn't like that, or even that it's tuned to completely disallow uploads. The logs ModSec is generating will tell you which rule is getting triggers, and should help you figure out how to resolve the issue.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Well, it sounds like you didn't get a flat rate bid from him. Your option is this: if he blows past his estimate you might want to start to question the billable hours and he might work with you on that, but the fact is that it looks like he's being straight with you about what he's doing, and that's a good thing from a contractor. If you seriously think he's trying to milk the contract, take a close look at what your escape clause looks like. Those things exist for a reason.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
I must be missing something here; you'd prefer that he not test and fix bugs...? If he's got a contract based on a flat bid then I might understand, but if he's submitting billable hours because that's how the contract is structured then I'm not sure what the gripe would be.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
You could XOR the nibbles of each byte together and use aggregate those values as your checksum. It's not perfect, multiple errors in a byte could lead to collisions, but it's better than the alternative and should still be speedy.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
A sign that I've appreciated in a couple of different supply rooms: "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine"
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Ah, ignoring the standard. There's a shock.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
A lot of configurations, such as what encryption standards are acceptable, can be configured at the OS level; it's possible that they locked it down further. The odds of that serious a bug in something as well traversed as the network stack are unlikely. Can you get wireshark on a client and see what's happening? That would allow you to troubleshoot the TLS handshake, and the overall traffic flow in general.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
If it's presented as a standard download it might well be a header or CORS issue. If it's an async download, the error likely lies in the javascript running in the browser. Determine the download method, check the crapple browser API, and play "spot the difference".
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor