2
points
ignaloidas
Joined 572 karma
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/ignaloidas; my proof: https://keybase.io/ignaloidas/sigs/Iou_f-Yut9sSMfvg35vD1HSXu2CCfYELtf4RxJHEC9I ]
- ignaloidasThis is quite exactly the opposite of TCM in fact
- Don't ever mention PD 1.0, it's a cursed standard that was never actually used and that nobody should ever use. USB PD started with PD 2.0, and we shall never speak of the stillborn child that is 1.0
- Sun is continuously running a very nice distillation cycle the size of the world that makes fairly clean water just fall out of the sky. It's only a question of where does it fall, and how much. If you want it even cleaner, wait a couple centuries for it to filter down underground, and get it from there - besides maybe a bit high mineral contents, that can easily be removed, it's essentially free, clean water. The only question is how much it's replenished in the area you're taking it from.
There's plenty of areas where there's more rainfall, than there is outflow/evaporation, with water continuously replenishing deep groundwater. "Saving water" in such areas is of little concern besides the basic, economic one of well maintenance - each one can only pull so much, and more usage means more wells, and more upkeep.
- Youtube has been long normalizing videos standard feed, switching to a -14 LUFS target in 2019. But LUFS is a global target, and is meant to allow higher peaks and troughs over the whole video, and the normalization does happen on a global level - if you exceed it by 3dB, then the whole video gets it's volume lowered by 3dB, no matter if the part is quiet or not.
The stable volume thing is meant to essentially level out all of the peaks and troughs, and IIRC it's actually computed server-side, I think yt-dlp can download stable volume streams if asked to.
- Companies that build themselves on selling open source software put themselves in the position where anyone else can copy them and compete with them on price, and price alone. This is clearly the disadvantage of open source. It brings plenty of advantages, which is why people do it - but you can't have only the advantages and no disadvantages of open source.
Open sourcing your product is a risky investment, and as with all risky investments, it might pay out, or it might not.
- Hey, you now have a specific cost to point to when arguing for/against solutions that have this problem. "each deployment will cost us at least 12 specialist hours per year just replacing the certificates" is a non-negligible cost that even the least tech-minded people will understand, and it can be a good lever for requiring the support.
- It's because S3 api is quite a fair bit worse than what they offer. They define their guarantees for storage products way more clearly than other clouds, and for blob storage, from my understanding, their model is better than S3.
- So why not bring your better negotiation abilities to your peers? Collectively the bargaining power is way larger, and as such the upside as well.
- Source code license doesn't matter, Mozilla did this with Debian, that's why Iceweasel was a thing.
- It cannot route HDMI, partly because HDMI is built upon antiquated principles and doesn't really fit besides more modern protocol designs. USB4 would need to get entirely redesigned for tunneling native HDMI.
Having a DP to HDMI converter on one end though, that's easy.
- Host-to-host connections over USB4 (which is Thunderbolt without Intel's marketing) actually just have a packet interface over which you can pass IP, no need for Ethernet emulation.
Linux driver is here https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/net/th...
- > Quite a disciplined policy by the stewards of the website. How does the enforcement work against say, overtagging?
Tags are used as negative signal, rather than positive (as in, you filter out tags you don't like, rather than taking the ones you do), so overtagging would kill the submission, and missing tags will be added by others via suggestions (which automatically add the tag after some threshold amount of suggestions).
- From my experience it's a lot easier to learn another language than to learn a new model of operation or new concepts entirely. And if you'll want to work with Godot, that will likely be the main barrier, and the main thing that will not be transferable to other contexts. The language however, can only make working with the concepts easier or harder. Godot team has decided that having their own language designed for dealing with the concepts of the engine makes it easier to use and results in less work than trying to adapt some existing language to the concepts of the engine. I've dealt with this a couple times, where a language was transformed so much by the context it was used in, it felt like an entirely different language.
- Because people make money using it.
- Considering how few people do so, I'm fairly certain it would take more than a month for somebody to catch that.
But I guess it's also fairly easy to test it: just serve a slightly different version to the google's go mirror (by the user agent), and see how long until somebody complains to you about it.
- If the proxy changes a new version of a package, when you update it, there's no way to detect it since it fetches through the cache anyways, so a poisoned sum will be added to sumdb, and anyone who isn't fetching their packages through Google's proxy will get told that whatever they're using is trying to trick them.
- FWIW it's a bit of a different game with TPMs than with secure elements in general - imagine how much would it cost a bank in credit card replacement costs if the firmware on them could be erased by anyone, making the card useless. That's not something that should be wipeable.
- I think the focus on RISC-V is in large part because of the focus of RTL-level verification. You can't release ARM core's RTL, and some may fear that backdoors might be hidden there. But you can easily release RISC-V core's RTL, and let people verify that there is no backdoors in there.
- I worked for them a couple of years ago. I can confidently say that as of 2 years ago, the only thing images of your face would've been used for is verifying if it's an actual human face (e.g. not a photo, mask, etc.) and performing a facial match with the photo on your document. Also, at least 2 years ago every identification flow had a human review, to weed out false positives and negatives. I'm fairly certain that these things have stayed the same, as the guys running it are a good bunch of people, and don't have any ulterior motives for using AI besides moving the SLA from humans to AI.