https://dietrich.daroch.me/
- dietr1chDoing stuff like turning on tracing for clients that saw errors in the last 2 minutes, or for requests that were retried should only gather a small portion of your data. Maybe you can include other sessions/requests at random if you want to have a baseline to compare against.
- Unlike IPv6 localhost that's just the [::1] address. I'm not sure if you can abuse IPv4 in IPv6 to do the same
- The team (AND Marketing) should focus on saying it's a fast core browser with the extensions you want to make it yours.
Have recommended extension sets ([uBlock, Sponsorblock], [Containerise, Sideberry, Decentraleyes], [AI translation + Dictionary/Thesaurus]).
Make me want to use your AI features, don't just slap them on my face wishing I'll do more than get mad and try to get rid of them.
- Yeah, you can only delay attacks by a tiny little bit, but the search space of 10^6 is just too small. Salting it doesn't give you much more security.
- I think that many are able to toss a almost permanently online raspberry pi in their homes and that's probably enough for sustaining a decently good distributed CAS network that shares small text files.
The wanting to is in my mind harder. How do you convince people that having the network is valuable enough? It's easy to compare it with the web backed by few feuds that offer for the most part really good performance, availability and somewhat good discovery.
- > Renaming is hard precisely because you shipped with the wrong name. That's why you should get it right from the start.
No, it's just because the goddamn string Id appears in way too many places and you can't sed-replace the entire world at once. It doesn't matter if the string was cute, fancy, or you found it to be a good name.
- > renaming will be much cheaper if you're renaming to descriptive names
Idk, renaming things that shipped is a PITA.
Say you wanted to rename `fish` to `a-decent-shell`. - Packages in all distros would need to be renamed. - Configuration for all systems using/having fish would need to change. - Scripts would need to change, from the shebang to the contents if necessary. - Users would need to understand that they now need to search documentation using the new name. - Documentation would need to be migrated to new domains, sed-replaced, and reviewed.
All this migration would require some synchronized, multi-step process across multiple distros and deployments.
I'd rather have a name that works as an Id.
- Also, being too precise and succinct about what the tool does ends up in a race for the name in competing implementations.
Project names should be unique enough to allow them becoming their Id,
- It allows to find the project.
- It allows the project to change, extend it's scope or narrow it.
Having an Id is really important, making that Id related to the project's original intention is nice, but secondary. (as long as it doesn't change enough that it becomes misleading).
- It also keeps slowing down development as getting a green global compile will make you still update "deprecated" functions that face breaking API changes.
- > because the website is a good "web citizen." It has urls that maintain their state over a decade.
It's a shame that maintaining the web is so hard that only a few websites are "good citizens". I wish the web was a -bit- way more like git. It should be easier to crawl the web and serve it.
Say, you browse and get things cached and shared, but only your "local bookmarks" persist. I guess it's like pinning in IPFS.
- > Also, you can’t avoid HTML email nowadays
This is the reason I haven't tried all the email tools that seem fun to play with, but not worth it :/
- How is this backfiring? I don't feel it's the CBP retaliating, but just staying busy as Canadian tourism plummets
- But ChatGPT told me to run that, so I did.
- > - It requires a ton of training, the UIs are not flashy so people are going to feel repulsed (I unironically found looks to be a big blocker when adopting open source tech), and finally Microsoft is going to lobby incredibly hard against it.
I think everyone agrees the costs are high, especially beyond monetary ones, but this stance on avoiding these costs is slowly pushing everyone into finding out how expensive is not having sovereignty.
Through its tech industry the US has over time acquired too much power over critical digital infrastructure that has already compromised governments. We know of Presidents/PMs/Legislators spied upon through their phones and computers, and also Microsoft itself involved in revoking email access to the ICC's chief prosecutor as retaliation/defense against investigations.
Sovereignty is too important for government, and since everyone needs to do it and get security right going for open-source with funded development and constant auditing is in my mind the only way.
- oh, pinky promise? sure, let's keep sovereignty at stake then, all good.
- Sure, but now there's a highly vulnerable network of cameras that reports wherever you pass to everyone way beyond the few people that saw you go around.
- Brits get arrested for even supporting peace, I don't feel I need to verify this claim.
- What do you mean HN-specific? I don't understand how cars got to require permanent cellular connections in the first place while Bluetooth would've been enough
- Isn't that ultimately there's people responsible for a company's actions the reason why Mr Burns has a canary that actually owns his company?
- Maybe the skill issue is not being a savage and instead desiring a more civil way of restoring things.