More about Oblivious HTTP and what Fastly is doing here is in a blog post that I wrote [1]. I wrote the OHTTP relay service for Fastly and was heavily involved in this deal.
Some points about how the service operates:
- Fastly does not receive your Chrome browsing history by virtue of running this service, because there is not a 1-1 mapping between URLs browsed and OHTTP requests made. We also cannot view the encapsulated request (which is passed to Google).
- Fastly does not capture access logs for this service, and no logs are sent to Google. There is only access to service-level metrics.
- Google does not have access to modify the configuration of this Fastly service, and does not own the domain or TLS key associated with it.
Yes, I'm working on bringing Fastly's OHTTP Relay to GA, which will allow us to offer it to more customers. That's ultimately more of a pricing and business process thing than any additional technical work. The implementation is feature complete at this point. Planning for that in Q2 (mid-April if all goes well).
I'm not (currently) planning to support customer self-service for this, because I anticipate that most customers may want:
1. Fastly to operate the OHTTP relay service, so that they can clearly state that they can't interfere with its operation to their end users.
2. Customization around business logic. We do plan to re-use the core service implementation across customers, but I've found with the initial implementations that there is an additional layer of business logic that's valuable (things like specifically which headers to strip / pass, using backend API key, verifying a client shared secret, etc.).
However, if it becomes apparent that self-service is desirable here, I'll definitely consider that. There would be a bit more work on the engineering side to enable that.
If you might be interested in that service, I'm happy to discuss: <hn username> @ fastly dot com
So Yoel posted a link to an article published in Salon titled "Student-teacher sex: When is it OK?" which discusses the broad strokes of a legal case and is in no way advocating on behalf of pedophiles. In fact, the case discussed could not be pedophilic because the student in question was 18.
In your mind this means that Yoel maybe doesn't deserve to be threatened, but still he should have expected this?
So how about for yourself? You posted a link to a link to an innocuous article titled "Student-teacher sex: When is it OK?" What were you thinking?
Nvidia's datacenter product licensing costs are beyond onerous, but even worse to me is that their license server (both its on-premise and cloud version) is fiddly and sometimes just plain broken. Losing your license lease makes the card go into super low performance hibernation mode, which means that dealing with the licensing server is not just about maintaining compliance -- it's about keeping your service up.
It's a bit of a mystery to me how anyone can run a high availability service that relies on Nvidia datacenter GPUs. Even if you somehow get it all sorted out, if there was ANY other option I would take it.
This study began in April 2021 and the paper was published in July 2022.
Presuming that the amount of time spent was necessary to thoroughly gather, review and document the findings, what would you have wanted done differently?
Not taken the vax if your health and age profile didn't merit it, given the unknown unknowns and lack of long term testing, which many people highlighted endlessly for the past year or so.
Public concessions exactly to your point that long term testing takes time, and assertions to the contrary that tere are no risks of x, y, z were blatant sophistry intended to silence legitimate criticism. These vaccines were mandated at threat of loss of careers for crying out loud...people are still getting fired for not taking them long after covid is any sort threat whatsoever or where there can be plausible deniability about claims the vaccines actually prevent contracting covid etc.
(lot of "trust the experts", "you sound like one of the ignorant rubes" type of replies at those links, devoid of any sort of critical thinking, blindly trusting authorities without any acknowledgement to potential downsides outweighing limited upside of vax for many cohorts)
I work in healthcare and life sciences, I am vaxed, and I can say I fully believe you are correct.
I have to attest and show my vax cards to keep my job or get a new one and - of all things - we had to show vax cards to go to a behind the scene animal encounter at a zoo. Does the vaccinne stop us from catching it or from giving it to others? There is no evidence, yet, that it does.
Am I having to weasel word my post here in the concern that my account will be banned from hacker news even though this is literally what I do for a living? Yes. Yes I am.
We ban accounts for breaking the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), not for being wrong or having a minority or contrarian view. If you present your contrarian view in a substantive, respectful, curious way and avoid flamewar tropes, you should be fine.
That's not easy, though. The temptation to lash out at users representing the majority view is really high (edit: especially when one notices them posting aggressively or with lazy arguments, which is always easy to do when speaking for a majority view). It looks to me like you're succumbing to that a bit—though not so much that we would moderate or ban you.
It's a hard problem. When people feel surrounded and picked on (and may be surrounded and picked on), they have a tendency to lose it (I'm not talking about you here) and go into fulmination, wake-up-sheeple rants, and so on. Then we moderate or ban them, because protecting the container is more important than rightness or wrongness on $topic. Inevitably they conclude that we banned them because of their views, which is usually not so. (I say 'usually' because nothing is 100% true about moderation and because there exist genuinely extreme cases, which have to be handled differently.)
Past explanations about this if anyone wants to read more:
With all due respect, not knowing your exact position, working in healthcare may not be more relevant to the topic the same way an average software dev would have a hard time fixing a deep-lying race condition in the database software.
Healthcare is a huge field, an orthopedic surgeon’s opinion for example should hardly matter over that of a virologist.
These side effects are not rare at all. These side effects should have been caught in the original vaccine trials.
The fact that it comes out now tells you something went very wrong in the trials. In a functioning science, a careful postmortem of the vaccine trials would be in order.
Perhaps you already know, but initial vaccine trials are not performed against menstruation age (aka likely to become pregnant) women. It is considered medically unethical to do so. That is an obvious double edged sword:
1. It prevents birth defects from occurring with trial participants, because this product has not yet been fully studied and approved.
2. It reduces the initial knowledge of any female-specific issues with the product, and particularly limits knowledge around pregnancy issues.
This also affected postmenopausal women who were included in the trials. To quote the paper: "66% of postmenopausal people reported breakthrough bleeding."
Then of course, menstruation age and pregnant women should not be told the vaccine is safe for them, as it was never tested on them. Similar to other pharmaceuticals, it should only be recommend after very careful consideration.
For example, the Tick-Borne Encephalitis Vaccine has a track record of decades, but still, the recommendation in pregnancy is [1] "The vaccine appears to be safe during pregnancy, but because of insufficient data the vaccine is only recommended during pregnancy and breastfeeding when it is considered urgent to achieve protection against TBE infection and after careful consideration of risks versus benefits."
Perhaps we wouldn't have had the news, pretending that there was no effect, and if there was, correlation is not causation, and then saying as little as 5 months ago that there may be an effect but that any effects on menstruation only lasted one day at the most [1]. Just be honest - dishonesty like this breeds anti-vaxxers.
[1] https://youtu.be/TWk2Z6mzZUU?t=60 (Good Morning America and ABC News talking about menstruation side effects 5 months ago and basically saying the opposite of this study)
I worked at Apple relatively briefly, in a lead role on an Important Project that required its own form to be disclosed on it (besides the general agreement you sign to begin employment). A truly toxic work environment that I couldn't get out of fast enough once I shipped the project.
All kinds of projects at Apple have their own disclosure forms, and you are only given one to sign if it's deemed necessary to your work. My responsibilities on this project didn't entitle me to be disclosed on it, which led to all manner of hilariously frustrating guessing games as I tried to deliver on the requirements without actually being told what they were. Conversations regularly went like this: "I can't tell you that that approach won't satisfy the requirements, but I would think twice if I were you." Ultimately I think that I puzzled out what was needed and successfully delivered it, but the method was pure madness.
This wasn't even some new silver gadget launch, it was an infrastructure component to a future product launch down the road. Yet everything and anything can be given the top secret treatment.
Why is that? Running a disclosure-required project is prestigious. Being disclosed on projects is a badge of honor, almost even a high score board, and not being disclosed is used as a weapon in big or small ways.
Anything that Apple manages to ship (in my experience) is in spite of their corporate culture, not because of it.
Keep in mind this attitude makes total sense to hardware engineers.
The hardware business is...
Let's just say that the difficulties you face definitely exist for hardware engineers.
But, difficulties involving negotiations plus recalcitrant South Korean factory owners are WORSE.
In "South Korean factory owner negotiations," secrecy is paramount.
Particularly if said South Korean factory owner is the biggest supplier of iPhone screens. And also makes an entire line of competitor phones to your products.
Apple's CEO, COO and "head of services" all have degrees from Duke University and 30 year careers in supply chain management. The company is widely regarded as being run by a Gang of 4, those 3 plus the general counsel.
From the outside, Apple is very much a hardware company that knows nothing about software.
The software is only good because Mac fans join the company and slave hard enough to make it that way.
> Keep in mind this attitude makes total sense to hardware engineers.
> The hardware business is...
> Let's just say that the difficulties you face definitely exist for hardware engineers.
I’ve worked in hardware and I’ve worked with multiple Korean CMs and I’m still struggling to understand what you’re trying to say. I don’t agree that this makes “total sense”.
Instead of being intentionally vague, can you please just describe what you’re trying to explain without the “Let’s just say…” and other totally unnecessary secrecy? This entire thread is about how toxic and unproductive it is when people use unnecessary secrecy and vagueness, so it’s kind of ironic to read comments using unnecessary vagueness.
I don't see the comment you replied to as being that vague: that are claiming that the information asymmetry with the hardware manufacturers/suppliers (including Samsung) in terms of things like price negotiations and "what's the next big thing" is more valuable than the downsides of internal engineer productivity.
Maybe? They didn’t claim anything at all. I didn’t see anything in that comment about price negotiations. Frankly I’m as confused as the grandparent as to what was being said.
I'd say the reason I was keeping it ambiguous is that I wasn't really making a point about hardware or price negotiations specifically. I'm not a hardware person at all.
I was maybe close to making a point that with supply chains, there's many reasons that might justify that kind of secrecy.
Really I just want to create empathy about non-software engineering reasons for secrecy.
Not ram home a particular hypothesis about a corporation I've never worked for. I have a habit of thinking from the perspective of corporate titans.
re: price negotiations which is my jam (3-D Negotiation and Never Split the Difference are excellent bedtime reading).
Keep in mind secrecy is often not JUST about withholding information to negotiate the best price. Sometimes the information is something the other person in the negotiation would also like you to keep secret.
' I have a habit of thinking from the perspective of corporate titans.'
Thats sounds a bit presumtious, have you ever validated how accurate that perspective is? Maybe the perspective you imagine is totally different from reality.
> I honestly think we're very biased towards assuming our senior corporate leaders are foolish and misguided.
I honestly think we're very biased towards assuming our senior corporate leaders are gods and not fallible mortals.
All humans make mistakes. Very bad mistakes. Even very smart people. Depending on circumstances and level of power, some people suffer the consequences of their mistakes, and others don't.
One common mistake of leaders is to surround themselves with "yes men" who never criticize them or tell them the truth. Leaders can become very detached from reality, but their power allows them to survive and even thrive in a state of reality detachment. And these leaders always have people who will defend them no matter what and paint them as infallible geniuses because of their power, which is part of what contributes to never suffering the consequences of mistakes.
Diagnostic errors by Doctors are probably the gold standard of being error free. My estimate is that CEO types are usually right at least 60% of the time with these big decisions as it were.
What I'm curious about is why they thought they were right when they made the decision.
> What I'm curious about is why they thought they were right when they made the decision.
This may be important to determine liability in a malpractice lawsuit, but otherwise I'm not sure why we should care much why someone was mistaken if we're all agreed that the decision was mistaken.
The difference here is that we're not even agreed that Apple's culture of secrecy is wrong. It's a controversy. If we're talking about a diagnostic error by a doctor, we're assuming there's no controversy over whether it was actually wrong.
Two vastly different scenarios:
1) Tim Cook made a mistake but made the best decision he could given the information at the time.
2) Tim Cook didn't make a mistake.
If you're willing to agree on 1, and that Apple's culture should change, then I'm happy to grant you "made the best decision he could given the information at the time", or at least not argue it too much, because the culture is the important matter, and not the thoughts inside Tim Cook's brain.
"Assume he's smart" is vastly different than "Assume he's right".
There are many times in my career when I look at code that I'd previously written and wonder "What the heck was I thinking???" It's an interesting question psychologically, but still, I fully recognize that the code I wrote was bad. And regardless of how much time I spend on post-mortem analysis, the crucial thing is to fix the code.
> But when they committed to that mistake, they thought they were right at the time
I never met a person who commited to a mistake, and thought they were wrong at the time. Have you?
> My estimate is that CEO types are usually right at least 60% of the time with these big decisions as it were.
How do you arrive at this number? For a doctor there is a clear correct and wrong diagnosis. For a corporate CEO, who decided against doing a merger, how do you even know that decision was taken at all? How do you known if it was right or wrong? You can't simulate an alternative business.
Suppose you could simulate it accurately, and the revenue were up, profit margin is down, and stock price is up - is that good or bad? You can't even determine, non subjectively, which option is better
The bankers who traded subprime mortgages and fucked off with their gains made an excellent decision. The corporations didn't, because they are not real, they don't make decisions.
Just because something is in the interest of a senior leader, does not mean it's in the interest of the whole company.
The "open secret factoid" that OP is dancing around is that Samsung makes screens for iPhones, and is also obviously Apple's biggest competitor as the default "Premiere Android phone" brand.
I don't really see what this detail has to do with OP's point about hardware engineer logic/gang of four/etc
I regularly work for companies working for Apple, have a number of ex-coworkers who worked, or went to work to Apple.
Lose tongues are everywhere, and Apple can't seem to keep anything secret in its China RnD unit.
Shenzhen is a city of 17M on the paper, but very few people are working in Hardware now. It's a very small industry. I feel I know more than half of all companies on somebody's resume. Most of 30-40 years olds in the industry were already working for 10+ years.
Btw Most of AirPods RnD was done in China, not California.
I would also add that hardware unit side in Apple is said to be very conservative, and a mirror image of their software team. At least in China, they hold a lifelong negative score system, where -30 is you are out under any conditions, and 15 minutes late counts as -3. They also use USB sticks to move files around, and work on offline computers to prevent leaks. Also, WinXP everywhere.
I agree that there is an element of logic in the process, but I also think that it's being done today to a large extent because "this is how we do things at Apple" rather than because it fits the needs of that particular project.
To your example, imagine that the full-time Apple employee responsible for negotiating with that SK factory owner also doesn't know that Apple wants the factory to produce iPhone screens. Just go sign a factory that satisfies our hundreds of requirements, none of which you know, and by the way we need it in a month and everyone else knows what is required but they can't / won't tell you.
There is just no way to get the best results when you operate that way internally.
Keep in mind as well, all corporate policies follow a normal distribution.
Most of the time, I find corporations never aim for 90th percentile high performance. Perfect is the enemy of cost effective.
They want "works pretty well 80% of the time. And the 20% that's balls up, make sure it's not so bad."
In your case I suspect the reason is they think "too much secrecy" has much less downside than "too little secrecy."
Now, whether that's incompetence or malice, we can never know. But those are the gears turning in the head of the Director/VP who's classifying these projects.
You're exactly right that companies don't want pure efficiency, and they shouldn't -- there will always be competing priorities to be weighed.
Here's the rub for me, in this particular role at this particular time in this particular company: the workload was extremely heavy, the deadlines were extremely unrealistic, the threat of failure was extreme (up to and including terminating the entire org for failure to meet objectives), and yet it must be done blindfolded and with both hands tied behind our backs.
I'm sure it isn't always like that at Apple, but that was toxic and it contributed to all sorts of toxic behaviors throughout the org. It's no wonder to me that this behavior leads to burnout across the company.
Have you expanded on the toxicity somewhere? I’m tying to understand how an organization like apple can be so toxic and successful. Makes a really bad impression to me.
Besides my comments here, I haven't spoken about it before.
For what it's worth, Apple is hugely siloed and also just plain huge. It's entirely possible that the culture in other orgs was completely different from what I experienced, because it was very hard to interact with anyone outside of your org or the current project scope.
How are they so successful despite this culture? In the case of the project I worked on, I saw a few reasons for success:
1. Management expressed that failure was not an option, so a few people (myself included) out of hundreds pushed ourselves beyond the limit to deliver.
2. Spending a TON of money. I had a different approach to Apple's way of controlling costs (they were very much in the "buying DRAM for iPhones" mindset), and easily shaved millions off of the project. But the inefficiencies inherent to the project's timeline and secrecy and other stakeholders meant the project came in probably 2-3x more expensive than I would have otherwise spent.
3. Leveraging existing institutional resources. Already having a global network and datacenter footprint helped immensely on the time to ship, but it also came with a ton of bureaucratic baggage.
4. Being so large that it ultimately didn't matter. While the project was essential for a key initiative to succeed, and many people (perhaps the entire org) would have been let go if it had failed, ultimately the company would have been fine if it didn't happen. They probably would have just postponed the launch by a year or two and had another org handle the project. It's very hard for a company Apple's size to have anything be an existential threat, so you get a lot of chances.
My impression as outsider privy only to public information was that this culture was seeded by Steve Jobs, who disliked leaks, partly because he liked their product announcements to be glamorous and surprising. I do know that company culture can be very sticky so not surprised this would persist to this day.
How much of an advantage are you really getting here? The first day they are sold samsung has the airpod torn apart and rendered on a computer screen with all specs known. There are no big secrets here, these aren't warheads. It didn't take long for the gas stations around me to start selling knock off airpods along side the knock off lightning cables. If you get it early vs not, its not going to make a big difference. People who want to be in the apple ecosystem will buy the airpods anyway and people who don't care about that will buy whatever alternative is on the market, probably whats on sale at the time when they look.
I imagine the brand recognition of being the innovator here (whether or not they really have innovated on anything, I won't judge that here) is a bigger factor in the market than it appears at first. At the very least, that lasting, prestigious reputation of being a global innovator fits the bill for the type of "personality" that the corporation exhibits and must tickle something's fancy there, and at most it causes a skew in the market towards Apple whereupon they can charge their exorbitant prices per unit because they did it first.
Something that's telling of my conjecture is the use of the phrase, "knock off airpods" in your comment - I imagine that came about subconsciously, and yet such a phrase seems to have a powerful effect on every other product that comes after.
e: formatting, I get markdown rules mixed up with HN's!
That’s just the issue. You can’t get all of the “innovations” in one phone and they are all hampered by janky software by hardware manufacturers who can’t do good software.
If you want an Android phone with decent software and hardware, you’re stuck with only being able to choose a Google produced phone.
It’s not about preventing knockoffs, apple is not built on first mover advantage.
It’s about protecting price on contracts for supplies that are locked in well before launch. When AirPods launch apple has contracts lined up already for production of many thousands of them if not millions.
So if samsung knows apple wants to use some part from some vendor they will actually go to that vendor and attempt to buy out their stock? Seems like there is a market for unscummy vendors who won't do that to you then.
> Apple's CEO, COO and "head of services" all have degrees from Duke University
Why do you mention this? Duke awards thousands of degrees every year. It's a highly ranked university, but the number of people in the world with degrees from highly ranked universities is massive. It's not rare.
The chances of the top three (four?) executives at any given giant multinational company all holding degrees from the same institution is pretty small. I don’t think there is an intent to malign Duke, but it is noteworthy.
> The chances of the top three (four?) executives at any given giant multinational company all holding degrees from the same institution is pretty small.
Not really. Colleges are social networks. Alumni favor each other. Facebook and Google were both founded at colleges.
> I don’t think there is an intent to malign Duke
I read it the opposite way, as attempting to say that having degrees from Duke somehow makes Apple leadership uniquely capable: "all have degrees from Duke University and 30 year careers in supply chain management".
> but it is noteworthy.
It's some interesting trivia. But it's not clear why it's noteworthy in the context of the discussion of secrecy at Apple.
Tim Cook got an MBA at Duke, Jeff Williams got an MBA at Duke. Tim Cook was at IBM, Jeff Williams was at IBM. Tim Cook joined Apple in operations, Jeff Williams joined Apple in operations. Do you think those are all just random chance coincidences?
I’ve been “ultra violet” on a bunch of projects there and it’s more hassle than it’s worth. I too was very happy when I left. Even though I met a ton of wonderful and brilliant people the company itself is insufferable.
I’m disclosed on many many projects at the fruit company and I don’t think there is any prestigiousness. What happened to you is super super rare and that’s what makes it entertaining to read about.
To me as an outsider, this sounds like the Apple pendent to white privilege. I don't really want to doubt your experience but how do you know that there is no prestigiousness when you seem to be in a position with an abundance of disclosures?
Maybe there is this prestige somewhere in Apple, like the people who work at Apple Park are isolated from the rest of us, but I am such a pleb that I never got the memo. Almost everyone has to be disclosed on stuff to work at all.
Apple seems to have a very strange way of doing things when it comes to secrecy.
When I was working for the defense industry, we would just vet people more extensively than needed to give us some margins and while things were on a need to know basis, you would never have been impaired on requirements like that, it’s just too costly.
Don’t most most big tech companies have these? At Microsoft it is pretty common for most people to be in a few “tents” (project specific NDAs).
What is more rare are agreements _outside_ the in place system…
I think the best skill I learned at Google was figuring out how other people's code works. You read the documentation, and then you make some RPC. It doesn't work as documented. You go read the other service's logs and see an error message, but it doesn't make any sense. You search the codebase for that error message. You find that the super deprecated do not include field is mandatory; it's sent to some other service that thinks it's important. 10 minutes later, you fix your code, the RPC works, and you're on to the next thing. No meetings, no calls, no emails, no time zone coordination, no bugs languishing in some queue that you're not even sure it's the right one... just a solution!
I was really surprised how uncommon this is outside of Google. People will hit an issue with a library, file a bug, and just sit there blocked without ever opening up the malfunctioning code and reading through it. Why turn a one player game into a multiplayer game unless you really have to? Reading code is what you do for a living!
Like anything, it's a skill that you need to develop, but it's one that will make you really productive.
I find this difference also between people who grew up on open source vs proprietary software.
I'm nervous about running in production software I can't open up and look at how it works under the hood. I often use that ability to understand my systems better.
Some people just don't care about that. They're used to paying a support agreement and opening a ticket or calling a support rep instead. I will never get it but clearly that's how some people like to, or are at least used to, operate.
People do do this. The problem is the docs never get fixed and everyone needs to do what you just did. Great if you have essentially infinite money; otherwise bad.
To me documentation is largely a lost cause, it starts out behind the code and stays that way forever, because the machine can't execute the documentation. Yes, the human maintaining the code is more important than the computer running the code, but when you have an infinite number of tasks to get done, what the computer accepts is a pretty good stopping point for most people.
Personally I see a lot of value in documentation (that's how I learned the basics of programming and the systems I use), but since it's always out of date and wrong, I tend to undervalue it. Maybe that's a mistake.
So I guess the other side of the coin is that some people are very good at managing their vendors, internally or externally. This is another useful skill to learn. I'm not that good at it, but it's good to have both options in your toolbox.
FB is eons ahead of Microsoft in this regard. Their homogenous development experience eliminates tonnes of learning curve and busywork that you get with thousands of unique repos, build pipelines and and environments.
At Amazon, at least AWS, I as a consultant can ask any service team about features coming down the pike and the expected timeline. We can even share with customers with permission if they sign the appropriate NDA. As far as I know, MS is the same way. Enterprise customers want to be kept in the loop and we need to validate an offering and get customer feedback. AWS often makes changes to products before they are released publicly. That’s why you already have customer testimonials before a product is released.
It's ironic when they talk about "office collaboration" and "bumping into colleagues" but in reality you can't even talk about what you're doing to most (internal) people
I take that to mean that “office collaboration” is letting people know what they need to know “off the record” and you don’t want any chat logs showing it.
>Anything that Apple manages to ship (in my experience) is in spite of their corporate culture, not because of it.
You can say this about probably every large company out there and yet in the end they deliver. The saying "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" applies to corporate cultures as well imho. Once the target becomes to optimize against the culture then the culture ceases to be a good culture.
In some ways I can see secrecy diluting the usual backstabbing politics of larger corporations since different groups lack as much information with which to wage such politics against each other.
lots of stuff isn't disclosed that isn't important. sure some things may be secret or require that not everyone can be added but that's the same as top secret projects.
it's not toxic in and of itself. i think there are a lot of toxic teams but not every team and not every org are that way. if you can't get disclosed on something that you manage then you have some toxic issues but i wouldn't shit on the entire concept because of that, i would question why the org and company are that way as a whole and fix the root issues
The other two are to exhaust CO2, fumes and particulates, but I presume that the note about showering is for removing moisture from the interior air and preventing mold growth.
Ideally you want external exhausting vent fans in every kitchen and bathroom, although lots of places have nothing at all or only internal vent fans.
I mostly use regular gaff tape on cables, but if you regularly have problems getting the tape off of the cable there is another kind with a non-adhesive channel in the middle of the tape (Pro calls it Cable Path).
It is an indie film, in that it's being distributed by A24 and not a major studio. It's also incredible and I highly recommend seeing it.
The rollout has been a little unclearly messaged, but it's:
March 11 2022 - SXSW premiere
March 25 2022 - NY/LA/SF limited release (including some IMAX theaters)
April 8 2022 - Wider release
April 15 2022 - Full release
So your best bet is likely the end of this week for it to get closer to you. If a theater isn't showing it by then, it probably won't before the theatrical window closes.
It may be that your theater just hasn't announced showtimes for Thursday and after (beyond whatever the big release is), which is usually when schedule changes are made.
If your theater is anything like mine, this is exactly what's happening - I bet if you check tomorrow, you will see showtimes on Thursday. I did the _same exact thing_ with this movie last week, and it was never showing any of the days - once Wednesday rolled around though, there was finally showings on Friday.
If that ends up not being the case, you'll still have tomorrow or Wednesday to go :)
