Klathmon

63 ms·

601.
by Klathmon 8y ago
That's very true, so I guess at the end of the day manual verification is needed for just about everything where you absolutely need a user to be able to recover their account. A scheme like the above still helps cut down on the number
602.
by Klathmon 8y ago
And if there is a flood that destroys that too?
603.
by Klathmon 8y ago
Even then a backup code like that isn't going to work in all cases. This is the same issue that electronic/cryptographic voting schemes run into. You can't in many cases just tell your user "too bad you lost the code&quo
604.
by Klathmon 8y ago
This is the one that I like the best if manual human review doesn't work for your use case. Set a reasonable time period (a month seems like really long, I was thinking more along the lines of a week), use every piece of information yo
605.
by Klathmon 8y ago
> if someone makes a request over port 80 revoke that token I really like this trick! Not only do you now have a log of "shady stuff" happening, but you've gotten rid of the now compromised tokens instantly!
606.
by Klathmon 8y ago
>as long as you aren't doing mobile. That to me is the biggest issue. There's "cross platform" and there's "cross platform". QT gets you the major desktop platforms, but not a ton more. The web gets you
607.
by Klathmon 8y ago
But if node.js were to use a different default of how to do filesystem lookups (look for foo.js, then fallback to foo/index.js if not found), then you'd start seeing modules which wouldn't work on the web without the web serv
608.
by Klathmon 8y ago
You know what, I had completely forgotten about that, and it completely changed my view. Sure, we can have webservers serve up different thing based on parsing the url (a GET for `/users` could return `/users/index.mjs` if it
609.
by Klathmon 8y ago
That's not what the linked article says, and even if it is true, it still won't do a lookup for `index.mjs` inside the `thing` folder, so it still hurts that usecase.
610.
by Klathmon 8y ago
If it's not needed, then I'm also questioning it. Requiring that extension breaks a lot of previously "very nice" things. Being able to create a file like `thing.js` and require it by doing `require('./thing&#x
611.
by Klathmon 8y ago
I think the biggest difference is that now it's mainstream. Back in the early 2000's online games were played by a faction of the population that plays them now. They were fringe, and having "online friends" was consiter
612.
by Klathmon 8y ago
I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but something like this is still used for solar power generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
613.
by Klathmon 8y ago
Does the reasoning behind it matter? The public benefits from it, and they get to hire researchers that want to continue that work. It sounds like a win-win?
614.
by Klathmon 8y ago
I'm still amazed and saddened that the original Contributor didn't work out. It was such a great concept that would work all the way from first introduction to a hypothetical future where everyone uses this and nobody sees ads.
615.
by Klathmon 8y ago
But then the private variables can impact code outside of the class, and and they are no longer truly private. Imagine you are using a library and extending it adding a few properties for usage in your app, and one patch upgrade your app br
616.
by Klathmon 8y ago
And all a hypothetical "bug" needs to do is listen for some key phrases, and send a single byte or a few bytes of data across the wire, even through side channels. I can imagine a system that throws an extra byte or 2 on those &qu
617.
by Klathmon 8y ago
If we are playing the "you can't prove that" game, then you also can't prove that your $12 throw away phone isn't always recording, or that you new kitchen countertop doesn't have a recording device embedded in
618.
by Klathmon 8y ago
Now i'm not going to pretend to even know anything about tunnel boring, but are those the only "errors" that are worth fixing? I'm assuming if the Boring Company is moving forward, that they have actually done the resear
619.
by Klathmon 8y ago
Can't you just not use that product then? I get that there may be network effects that trap you, and you could be worse off because that means that by prioritising another feature they made one of your personal favorite features worse,
620.
by Klathmon 8y ago
That watercooler talk getting lost is absolutely a pain point with remote work, but there are mitigations and benefits that offset it in my opinion. One option is to re-create that talk. At a past job we would often all fuck around before&#
621.
by Klathmon 8y ago
I know this is a cheap answer, and it tends to get a bit philosophical for me, but you have to ask the question "would that site exist without those frameworks?" If using that framework means that the developer can churn out somet
622.
by Klathmon 8y ago
Now I won't pretend to be within several magnitudes of the scale that Chrome runs at, but having given users the choice of "never ask for X again" in the past, it just ended up causing more issues than it ever solved. People
623.
by Klathmon 8y ago
But then what happens if you have `private myVar` and you need to access the public `myVar` from within the class? That's not an extreme hypothetical, it was a real example from someone trying to use this feature. They had tried to emu
624.
by Klathmon 8y ago
That's an option right in the settings. Along with all other permission requests. Just set it to "never ask" or something similar and it will auto-deny all notification permission requests. You can also enable it for specific
625.
by Klathmon 8y ago
`this['#myVar']` will access the public field named `#myVar`, so it's the same as the `example` method. >If they are different it's very inconsistent and IMHO a lot worse. It is called out in the link I posted above a
626.
by Klathmon 8y ago
>there is a low utilization factor for each satellite So we are getting to the limits of my knowledge here, but I believe that this won't be as big of an issue simply because sats aren't JUST communicating with the ground, they
627.
by Klathmon 8y ago
The spec's solution is to not solve that problem ;) Dynamic property access isn't allowed for private fields, so it kind of side steps that whole issue.
628.
by Klathmon 8y ago
(This is all from memory as a fan, so take it all with a grain of salt and please correct me if i'm wrong on anything!) So Starlink (the name of the network SpaceX plans to build) is different than most other satellite internet project
629.
by Klathmon 8y ago
and what would you add in this sentence: "Alexa add paper towels milk and eggs to my shopping list" (punctuation intentionally left out) It's a really cool problem to try and solve, and while I don't have an Alexa, I do
630.
by Klathmon 8y ago
dynamic access to private fields is considered a "non-goal" of sorts, so `example['#myVar']` will act the same as it does now, it will always refer to the public property of that name. https://github.com/

More ›