Who thought a dark-grey font on black background is a good idea? I can barely read parts of the website. And from the screenshots it looks like the application itself has the same style?
This is pretty cool and one of the few things I couldn't find a viable alternative to in-house hosting so far. The only thing your "GitLab Runners as a Service" is missing is ISO 27001 (and optionally SOC 2) certification. That makes it again easier for your customer to get / maintain their ISO 27001.
Ha, let us look into ISO 27001 certification and see what it takes to obtain it (and SOC 2). Thank you for this valuable pointer! If you could just sign in (accounts are free and you can even try us out for the first 48h and not be charged), then we could message you to your email address once we have an update here.
I clicked 'Get started -> Login with GitLab.com' but for my tastes it wants way too much access just to add a runner:
> Grants complete read/write access to the API, including all groups and projects, the container registry, the dependency proxy, and the package registry.
> it wants way too much access just to add a runner
We wanted to make the onboarding as simple as possible so that we can:
0. Log you in through your existing GitLab.com or GitLab self-hosted account
1. List all your groups and projects to decide where to install the runner
2. Disable GitLab.com's own instance runners (otherwise our Runners are not picked up)
3. Install the Runner
4. Optionally: When installing an agent runner, we are able to reply to read and reply to all your issues where you tag us via `@Rocket` -- this runs completely on your machine that we host for you! It doesn't run on our infrastructure and we only access your runner machine for auto-cleaning its caches.
That's really all the RocketRunner does with you granting us permissions when logging in.
We are looking into ways how to possible scope access better! Thanks for your feedback!
It's the basic 'flaw' of Democracy: Since the majority of the people are old, they will vote in the interest of old people.
That's why the pension system will never be fixed.
Are we calling 40s old now? There are 2 countries where the median age is above 50 [0] and the US is 38.9. I suppose under 18s aren't in the voting pool but if a country has a median age of 50 they probably don't have that many under-18s running around. And old people don't vote as a totally unified a block, it'd be like saying countries are run for women because the median voter is a woman.
I'd suggest the main issue is that the world is so complicated that the younger voters just don't know what to organise and vote for. In the US in particular, they seem to basically be running an experiment every single election to try and figure out who they need to vote for to get some sane economic policy and stop getting involved in stupid wars. No success so far but you have to admire the process. The only people not getting the message are the people paid off to ignore it.
Older people as a bloc vote at reliably high rate compared to middle aged or young cohort and are vocal about their interests - politicians see this and react/plan accordingly. That's why SS is called the third rail of politics.
The majority of people being old is a relatively modern problem. One could even argue that it is a problem specific to cultures that favor low or negative birthrates.
The list of countries with no low or negative birthrates is very short (mostly heavily underdeveloped countries). That's why the Gerontocracy applies nearly everywhere. I doubt it was favoured, but it's result is the shift of incentives from long term (young people) to short term (old people). Democracy fails here.
Why would old people vote for other old _people_?
I understand they’d want to get ideas favorable to them to be applied, but that may as well come from any _not old_ person.
They tend to because typically people in the same stage of life tend to have similar interests to defend but like you say, it could theoretically come from politicians of any age. Younger cohorts are much more diverse and less likely to espouse these ideas, seeing them as extractive. This is where the stereotype of getting more conservative with age comes from - it's defensive wealth preservation.
I think this is changed by the Internet in the same way as WWW forces globalization. In a generation or two when Internet-illiteral generation dies out we will have cross age homogenized.
No cultures directly favor low or negative birthrates.
But we've known since the 1800s that it follows from female education (and this seems independent of culture, it was first observed in France, but you can see the same trend in any African country, or even Iran), which is favored.
France went through a demographic transition 100+ years earlier than all other European countries and then had a population boom in the 50s and 60s. I doubt an average French women was less educated in 1960 than in the mid 1800s.
I don’t think it’s that straightforward, material conditions in combination with massively lower mortality in all age groups and a shift in social values must be playing a significant part
It’s simply that for the first time in human history women have alternative options that don’t suck. That’s literally it. Birth rates will remain high only in socially conservative highly religious countries. Liberal democracies? No chance.
It would be interesting to see to what extent exactly this is accurate (of course to a certain extent it is) if the majority of the population in liberal democracies had the option of having more than 1-2 children without massively compromising their material wellbeing (or the future of their offspring due to the lack of resources).
Aside: Do older populations vote for older candidates? Like, pick a house district, what is the average age there, does that correlate? I suppose you can do the same for states and senate candidates too. And I think we have good historical data too, so does it work going backwards?
If it does correlate to some 'strong' degree [0], then i think we could use it as a bit of a prediction going forward.
[0] It's population stuff so really anything above r>0.35 is good enough
It's definitely because of the free markets. Only because Init7, the provider who actually provides the 25 Gbit/s, is constantly fighting Swisscom, the government-owned provider.
The US in the 1960s was more capitalist than it is now (by governement size, spending, taxation, regulation and economic freeodm, too-big-to-fail, etc.).
There has to be profit first to be able to fund big things like Apollo. Profit is good.
> it can be reduced by denormalizing casual alcohol intake
This! I find it so strange that, in 2026, they still casually drink whisky in Hollywood movies and TV shows at the office and at home every time they encounter a tough situation. That subtle suggestion that alcohol will somehow help.
However two thing can at the same time be true. Alcohol is one of the most dangerous and destructive drugs in society and also whisky in the evening by the fire can chill you out.
Switzerland is one of the best countries to be if you are rich, because it's safe and nobody will target you for driving a Porsche (probably the most common car brand in canton Zug), or similar.
So I'd be interested what he means too.
What is for sure better in the US: There is way more space.
It's a small country, relatively speaking. Rather dull cities, again relatively speaking. Rural land is hard to come by and expensive. Not a lot of sunshine hours either. Not English speaking, not an immigrant culture, and quite an insular society so if you're not born there it kinda sucks. The cities punch way above their weight, but in total the tech job market is still tiny compared to the US.
If you like being outdoors, Switzerland has one landscape, pretty much.
It's heaven for rich people, but a very specific kind of heaven.
