Architect Of Reason

Systems thinking | AI | Software Engineering | Philosophy | Founder @ VictoryTechnologies | Systems over Slogans.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

@jiya_3063 For development? The specific set of browsers you expect your users to use.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

Depends what you need.

Microservices make sense when parts of the system are genuinely independent: they can be deployed independently, scaled independently, owned by separate teams, and still provide business value if another service is degraded.

But a lot of companies do not actually operate like that. Their services are highly dependent on one another, share the same data flows, and often require data from several other services before they are useful. In those cases, splitting everything into microservices can just create a distributed monolith: all the coupling of a monolith, but with added network latency, deployment complexity, observability problems, and failure modes.

For many businesses, a modular monolith makes more sense. Keep the application deployable as one unit, but separate the internal logic into clear packages or modules with strong boundaries.

Microservices are useful, but they are not automatically better. They solve specific problems. In tech, every shiny tool eventually becomes the hammer CEOs want to swing because it sounds modern. The correct architecture depends on the actual problem, not the buzzword.

[Javarevisited @javarevisited]

Interviewer:

If microservices scale better,

why are many companies moving back to monoliths?

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

Depends what you need.

Microservices make sense when parts of the system are genuinely independent: they can be deployed independently, scaled independently, owned by separate teams, and still provide business value if another service is degraded.

But a lot of companies do not actually operate like that. Their services are highly dependent on one another, share the same data flows, and often require data from several other services before they are useful. In those cases, splitting everything into microservices can just create a distributed monolith: all the coupling of a monolith, but with added network latency, deployment complexity, observability problems, and failure modes.

For many businesses, a modular monolith makes more sense. Keep the application deployable as one unit, but separate the internal logic into clear packages or modules with strong boundaries.

Microservices are useful, but they are not automatically better. They solve specific problems. In tech, every shiny tool eventually becomes the hammer CEOs want to swing because it sounds modern. The correct architecture depends on the actual problem, not the buzzword.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

@T3chFalcon Just don't tell anyone 🤫 this is between me, you, and the internet.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

@hetmehtaa Just send all your passwords to me, I’ll store them safely, I'll even pinky swear 😇.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

It's also about keeping things from public view that you might see as harmless but a malicious actor may still be able to twist and use against you.

Those who say "I have nothing to hide" are incredibly naive, especially when it comes to government.

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

@Sargon_of_Akkad Add an ATtiny85, or another tiny microcontroller board, along with a small brushed DC motor, a MOSFET motor driver, a propeller, and a lightweight battery, and the fun expands even further.

[IT Guy @T3chFalcon]

Most people who care about privacy focus on their operating system. Linux over Windows. open source over proprietary.

That's good. it's also not enough.

Here's what's running below your OS on almost every Intel computer made since 2006:

The Intel Management Engine is a separate processor inside your chipset running its own closed-source operating system called Minix 3. It has direct access to your RAM, storage, network, and peripherals. it runs at Ring -3 below your kernel, below your hypervisor, below everything your OS can see or control. it stays active even when your computer is powered off as long as it's plugged in.

You cannot audit it. you cannot disable it through normal means. You cannot detect what it's doing from inside your OS.

The EFF called it a security hazard in 2017. The Libreboot project said it has complete access to and control over your PC, including the ability to track keystrokes, capture screen images, and examine all running applications.

Intel confirmed multiple vulnerabilities in ME in 2017 affecting 6th through 8th generation Core processors, Xeon, and Atom chips. Researchers demonstrated it could be used to inject rootkits remotely via the network interface.

The only known method to fully disable it was discovered by Positive Technologies. They found a hidden bit in the firmware labeled 'HAP enable' part of an NSA program called High Assurance Platform.

The NSA has a switch to disable Intel ME.

you don't.

if you want hardware that doesn't include ME: AMD processors do not have the same implementation. Purism builds laptops with ME neutralized. The Libreboot project has a list of hardware that can run without proprietary firmware.

Your threat model determines how far down this rabbit hole you need to go.

But you should know the rabbit hole exists.

[Paul Moore - Security Consultant  @Paul_Reviews]

If you can't tell the difference, neither can your child.
#ageVerification

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

@Paul_Reviews @UK_Daniel_Card Nah, just rigged the backend to send yes anyway 😂.

[mRr3b00t @UK_Daniel_Card]

Funny, I can't see why anyone in the UK is pushing back against government overreach with internet services and VPNs etc. /S

[mRr3b00t @UK_Daniel_Card]

'There is no privacy online. Period.'

tell me you don't understand computers, web architecture, networking and privacy without telling me

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

Never accept a company that won't even give the time to talk to you in person. AI interviews should never be allowed to become the norm.

[Andy @PositivFuturist]

Funny but also incredibly bleak.

[Naomi Brockwell priv/acc @naomibrockwell]

We’re constantly told to compromise more and more of our privacy.
But we’ve already surrendered so much over the decades that almost none is left.
And they still demand more.
Enough.
We can’t afford to give up any more. We have to fight back.

[IT Guy @T3chFalcon]

Check out this article: Using RDP without leaving traces: the MSTSC public mode by @awakecoding for more info on how to stop it.
https://t.co/9hU2jM8pme

[vx-underground @vxunderground]

The United Kingdom is ran by a bunch of fucking morons. I mean that wholeheartedly. These stupid fucks think you can "ban" VPNs and think "banning" VPNs will "protect the children".

"Ban" VPNs and watch what happens next.

[NetAskari @NetAskari]

How hard is it to really ban VPN's technically without going full "North Korea" with the tech of today!? Turns out, actually really hard. How do we know ? Well, the world's biggest surveillance state in China has been trying for a long time and despite some advances, to this day they struggle. Let us have a little walk along "VPN ban lane". 1/

[Architect Of Reason @ArchOfReason]

You are arguing against a position I do not hold.

I was not setting out a complete strategy for resisting present abuses of state power. I was responding to a specific future policy proposal: that, if Restore gains power, new speech crimes should be created, applied retrospectively, and used against political opponents.

That is the proposal I reject.

Rejecting it is not the same as saying current abuses should be met with passivity. If power is obtained, the response I would support is to repeal speech-policing laws, narrow the criminal line back to credible, serious threats of violence or calls to violence, and put safeguards in place so that machinery cannot be easily rebuilt.

At the individual level, I agree more with Rupert’s instinct: let the insult roll off you. The deeper problem is not merely that someone says “racist”, “Nazi”, or “fascist”. The problem is that institutions increasingly treat those labels as permission to punish the accused.

If Restore gains power, that machinery should be dismantled, not mirrored against political opponents.

Justice has to distinguish between guilt and association, violence and offence, punishment and retaliation. Broad political accusations should not become speech crimes simply because one side has abused them.

Turning broad political labels into criminal offences because they are said to create hatred, reputational harm, or social consequences is just hate-speech law under another name. It also makes it harder to call out genuine extremism when it actually appears.

Real change means removing the machinery, not preserving the structure and changing the target. It is not naive to dismantle systems used for political punishment. It is naive to keep them, aim them at today’s opponents, and assume they will not be aimed back at you later.

I want the state kept at a distance from ordinary life, not made more powerful because a different faction temporarily controls it.

The priest analogy does not address the point. I am not discussing immigration policy or private risk-taking. I am discussing whether a future government should criminalise political speech as retaliation. The analogy relies on emotional force, but it does not answer the argument.

I understand the anger behind the proposal. Public demonisation can destroy reputations, livelihoods, and sometimes contribute to real-world danger. But that is precisely why I want the machinery dismantled. I want the cycle to end, not repeated every time power changes hands.

[Nym @nym]

VPN Bans loading🌀

🇬🇧 UK - called VPNs a "technical problem"
🇪🇺 EU - signaled VPNs are next
🇹🇷 Turkey -VPN licensing proposals
🇮🇳 India - ordered VPN compliance or lose protections
🇦🇺 Australia - age verification may lead to ban
🇩🇰 Denmark - anti-piracy law risks VPN use

Kind of hard to ban a decentralized VPN😉