adrusi

81 ms·

781.
by adrusi 11y ago
which is what you need to even begin the discussion on a new standard. I only consider it whining if you point out the flaws, then don't do something about the flaws using the process for correcting them. To even begin discussion?
782.
by adrusi 11y ago
Why? The members who actually participate in the violence ought to be jailed, but why should they all be tracked? Especially when they already put all of their worst crimes on a public forum — what good would surveillance do if they already
783.
by adrusi 11y ago
Really any remote file protocol can do this. The difference is that OS X bundles software to mount webdav servers without any fancy configuration. On Linux virtually any protocol for managing remote files has a FUSE implementation that lets
784.
by adrusi 11y ago
Writing a good RFC is hard work, does it not make sense to write informally about your ideas first to see if they have any appeal before investing the time into proposing a new standard? Writing about it this way also exposes the problems t
785.
by adrusi 11y ago
It's redundant for extraction. For creation (-c) where you can list many files, it's just a choice some unix developer made to allow the destination file to be specified independent of order. I think there'd be some awkward e
786.
by adrusi 11y ago
The f isn't for force. It's for "file" and it takes the filename as a parameter — that's why you usually see it at the end of the character sequence, a filename has to immediately follow it. If you don't specif
787.
by adrusi 11y ago
It's called tar. Seriously. I'm positive gnu tar will pick the compression engine based on the file contents, I think bsd does too. It's not a documented standard, but if all implementations support it, it may as well be.
788.
by adrusi 11y ago
The first two cases you mention are about communicating with a specific real world organization. You can implement it using ipns, but it's inherently centralized. The last one is a no. Well actually yes if you just poll a file, but tha
789.
by adrusi 11y ago
With IPNS, which allows the creation of links whose destination can be mutated by whoever has the private key, you can implement quite a lot of interactivity. You won't ever be able to implement facebook over this platform, but you can
790.
by adrusi 11y ago
Also check out filecoin, which as I understand uses hosting data as a proof-of-work for cryptocurrency.
791.
by adrusi 11y ago
I'd argue that that's significantly worse at conveying the intent than the shell script version. The shell script started as a workflow that was executed repeatedly, manually, from the shell, and then automated. Naturally, the she
792.
by adrusi 11y ago
Since you took `glob` as an example, how do you get to the explanation of `for test in .in`?* `man -k wildcard` points to `man 3am fnmatch` which points to `man 3 fnmatch`. Now the process for python and shell converge, and I still have t
793.
by adrusi 11y ago
No such example; after all, you can spawn a shell subprocess in any of those. There's just certain types of tasks where you can more clearly express your intent in a shell script. If, for example, you need to spawn a ton of subprocesse
794.
by adrusi 11y ago
Well of course you can. Scripting languages aren't useless stunted toys. The point is that if that's what most of your program is doing, you'll have a lot more success using a language where that functionality is first class.
795.
by adrusi 11y ago
In addition to AnimalMuppet's point, shell scripts make no attempt to be cross platform, so you don't get any awkward leaky abstractions when trying to interact with low-level system facilities. The primitives in shell scripts are
796.
by adrusi 11y ago
I disagree. Shell scripts are great for automating system tasks — for sysadminy type stuff, including tasks with high complexity with nested loops and conditionals. A scripting language like those you mentioned is great for if you need to r
797.
by adrusi 11y ago
`const` has this caveat that it's only about assignment bindings and not about values. Imagine a piece of code that has `const x = 2` that you later refactor to `const x = [2]`. The complexity is, you now have to contend with the `[
798.
by adrusi 11y ago
Attendance requirements likely.
799.
by adrusi 11y ago
And the number of roundtrips can be helped by using Keep-Alive.
800.
by adrusi 11y ago
I'm not entirely sure who wins here. The prescription doesn't mean much aside from that insurance will pay fitness-related bills. But exercise doesn't have to cost anything. Even in the most unwalkable cities there's som
801.
by adrusi 11y ago
True. Doesn't address the userstylesheet problem though. Also, sending prerendered pages with inline styles causes a bandwidth problem. Your prerendered page is probably dynamic and uncacheable, but your stylesheet isnt. By using inlin
802.
by adrusi 11y ago
Not a huge amount of people will make custom styles, but they can be shared on sites like userscripts.org, for people who wouldn't bother making them or don't know css to use. Knowledge of basic HTML and CSS is more widespread tha
803.
by adrusi 11y ago
Well yeah, you're right that you don't necessarily want every interactive app to use server rendering. TeMPOraL's reply gets the point across pretty well. What I was trying to convey is that with tools like react, where you c
804.
by adrusi 11y ago
The separation of concerns argument is dogmatic here. Just because it used to be that you should keep presentation in your CSS and behavior in your javascript, doesn't mean that's a universal truth. It's a good abstraction to
805.
by adrusi 11y ago
Umm... no. That sounds absolutely awful in several ways. I just believe the web is about choice, and users shouldn't be expected to use the exact setup that the service providers demand. You can avoid a huge class of vulnerabilities by
806.
by adrusi 11y ago
YES! There's no reason for websites that are just documents to not work with javascript disabled. For that matter there's no reason that they shouldn't work in text-based browsers (this one still might, since the opacity isn&
807.
by adrusi 11y ago
It's not completely free from addiction potential, it's similar in degree to caffeine[1]. Dabs are very concentrated, and if you hit them several times a day many days in a row, and you are naturally inclined toward addiction, you
808.
by adrusi 11y ago
Yeah, that was odd, I wonder if it was some kind of elaborate typo. Heap allocation is much worse in C than in Go because you're responsible for freeing everything you heap allocate. There are only a few good reasons to heap allocate
809.
by adrusi 11y ago
How would you end up with if (rc < 0) return rc; goto fail; Why would you indent hat next line? Presumably because you were trying to add it to the existing if statement's non-existant block. But why would you do that
810.
by adrusi 11y ago
The point is that when you use malloc, an attacker exploiting a buffer overrun can't easily guess at the offset they need to find useful data. When you allocate everything in a big region, your process can be expected to read past the

More ›