The only thing that really got me going was small applications I had some interest in. Writing games I will not play never kept my interest up for long. So I’ve been building mini tools I used for teaching numerics classes in meteorology (Python, Julia, Fortran, C) or code I would be using for some tinkering with microcontrollers or similar (Python, C++) when using new languages. For me personally, some iconic projects were a CO2 sensor with an attached display, or very simple internal gravity wave ray tracers. But that’s likely not what you’d be interested in. So without trying to suggest specific applications for you (many good examples in the responses :-) I’d advise to do something you’ll have fun with. Get yourself a small project that generates added value for you specifically (and fun is great added value in my eyes).

Link to app repos, both contain the disclaimers: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-ios-wallet-ui https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/eudi-app-android-wallet-ui

Maybe the security expert could read the readmes in the repos first. From the iOS app repo:

The initial development release has reduced security, privacy, availability, and reliability standards relative to future releases. This could make the software slower, less reliable, or more vulnerable to attacks than mature software.

And further:

If you’re planning to use this application in production, we recommend reviewing the following steps: […] The Pin storage configuration matches your security requirements, or provide your own by following this guide Pin Storage Configuration […]

So the text hints not at design flaws but at facts that are already stated in the readme. <irony> Plus, the major source for the article is Pavel Durov, who’s messenger is of course a standard in security and privacy. </irony>

So there seems to be no news but a lot of speculation by Durov instead.

I’m glad to hear that lack of time/resources for code reviews are more common. Also for clarification: I was the author and requested reviews by my colleagues. In reverse, I did not receive requests to review PRs so far. Tbh. I would really like such a review culture as it is already standard in scientific publishing and it would have avoided some obvious bugs we did encounter in the past. Having that said, as I did not receive any review at all and I would appreciate low(er) quality reviews better than none.

It was more a question of finding the time within the daily business of doing science. I suppose it is also a culture issue, the priority to do a review is usually low. In other words, there was de facto never a review.

From a scientific modeler perspective: Always trying to do 5 (or 4), but I’m having difficulties getting a culture of reviewing each other’s codes going. Many times I was asked to “just merge” months after submitting a PR. In the context of operational or large community codes, 5 is usually strictly enforced. Weather services don’t appreciate broken code.

SEPA is the direct banking standard in Europe. Basically every transaction between banks follows that standard. If you’re doing business in Europe, that’s the most direct way you can go. Many other companies and their transactions follow the SEPA standard somewhere anyway. An SEPA mandate is pretty safe for the customer, too. It can be canceled by the account owner at any time. It does not have any additional insurance layer, though.

I’m not sure I understand this, tbh. Does that mean the P2P network works on a chat group basis? Or does the user explicitly choose who to build a P2P network with? And then, there are lots of follow up questions already looking around the corner.

Their website seems to explain very little and the app itself is closed source. Although there are open source dependencies, it’s for instance unclear whether they are complete. So I guess it’ll all come down to trust into the software and the company. Btw. their privacy statement allows the usage of aggregate data for marketing purposes and the sharing of data with third parties, such as search engines. And latest at that point I’d rather self-host a matrix instance.

Most ML development is done in Python to my knowledge. The reason is mostly the readily available side packages like torch, scikit-learn, etc. And Python, although not constructed as such, does indeed support a functional style. A quick search revealed a HowTo:

https://docs.python.org/3/howto/functional.html

I dunno. P2P traffic always seems to overburden light users and it would indeed require the apps to always run in the background to relay the traffic. Although the idea seems compelling I wouldn’t install the software on a machine of mine.

Appreciate the KISS perspective.

For me, the project management features of a forge are extremely helpful. Setting milestones, assigning issues to them, defining timelines and regularly reiterating the planning has proven to accelerate our work as a team significantly. This experience refers to huge code bases (climate models) and medium to large team sizes, though. And probably also my bad memory 😵‍💫

I suppose it’s always good, though, to evaluate how much management a code will actually need in the end, and what tools correspond to that need.

That’s a great recommendation, thanks! The pay per use model seems very fair and I like their approach to sustainability matters very much.

Thanks! Will have a look

While I totally agree that this should be the case, I’m not sure it really works. Voluntary participation is among the first things to be cut when it comes to monetary gain maximization, and is often not even considered. And in some instances, like the publicly funded research institute I work at, there’s no funds dedicated to voluntary contribution to open source projects.

Using it for years and am fully satisfied. Basically, any imap client capable of encryption will do.

Checked again. Beeper will be running “local bridges”. Once these are implemented into a modular system, there is not really a need for a local chat protocol in my understanding. The matrix connection can simply become another bridge and a Beeper server for Beeper chats would basically be yet another matrix server.

https://blog.beeper.com/2024/06/04/2024-beeper-roadmap/?ref=textscom

The FAQ says that “all integrations were implemented in-house using the Texts Platform SDK”. Whether that sdk is a derivative of the Matrix protocol? No idea. Texts.com does not offer connections to matrix, which kind of suggests it’s not 🤷🏼‍♂️ We will have to see whether the announced unified app will be running a solution based on Matrix or not.

Not exactly what was asked but a thought as I’ve been considering the same. After merging with Texts.com, Beeper seems to be redesigning the bridge architecture. I read that the implementation will move towards running the bridges on the client device so that the decryption is happening in the RAM of the end user’s machine rather than the server. In that case, the mentioned security problem will be at least partially resolved. Self-hosting the bridges is already possible now. One will still have to trust Beeper, though. As I am using their software already, it looks like there’s no reason, yet, to mistrust them.

There’s many pathways to get there. In my case it’s a classic science career. Whether that is better for the WLB is likely open for debate. 🙈 There’s a growing understanding in science that there’s a need for tenured scientific programmers supporting the compute infrastructure and development. These roles are quite rare though and thus there is tons of competition. Long story short: It’s a challenge. The good thing is that there’s many jobs out there with the meaning we seek.

I’m involved scientific programming tasks (climate models) and we are largely using a mix of prototyping, feature-driven, and big bang models. It’s a result of the requirements for our work. Important is, that our “user base” is extremely small and in the beginning of a project mostly ourselves. The required features are given by the scientific questions and timelines dictated by project timelines from soft funding. Iterations are thus mostly more like “that didn’t quite work, I need another method” kind of arguments. Hence, the implementation of modular and fast evolving design is important and often we try to build our software such that fast development can be done on individual models.
Sometimes theres an idea on how to solve a problem more efficiently or with better performance. And then it’s all about coming up with any proof of concept.

Finally, there is not really anything like a management in our line of work. The professor is usually satisfied if the results work out and papers go out quickly. The rest ist largely up to the group of devs.