dagenix

30 ms·

271.
by dagenix 8y ago
Different resources can be loaded with different versions of http, so, I don't know how you can say which version of http is in use. But, even if you could, I struggle to see what useful decision that would enable anyone to make outsid
272.
by dagenix 8y ago
You must be a real delight to work with. None of your rant addressed my question at all - is what Route53 is doing standard practice, or, is it the unusual one?
273.
by dagenix 8y ago
What do other DNS services do? If they do the same thing, this behavior makes sense to me. But, if other services do fail these invald requests, then I really don't see how this helps anyone. If these "weird" broken clients c
274.
by dagenix 8y ago
I find reading medical "standards" papers onerous and feel like they're written in a way that's deliberately inaccessible. I don't much like the idea of going to Medical Conferences -- even if my company funded it,
275.
by dagenix 8y ago
1. "YAML is stupid" is not constructive. Why is it "stupid"? 2. One place where YAML is nice is if you want to have a user-edited file. JSON can be a pain to edit by hand due to a lack of comments and being so picky abou
276.
by dagenix 8y ago
You will change your oppinion immediately. You must comply with this directive or you must stop distributing your oppinion. I will not be as educational next time.
277.
by dagenix 8y ago
I don't trust most of the networks I connect to. Home network - nope, I don't want to use Verizon's DNS servers; subway wifi - no; Coffee Shop - lol, no. Etc. Why should I have to trust the network I'm connecting to? Tha
278.
by dagenix 8y ago
It sounds like you will have to ban all browsers on whatever network you manage.
279.
by dagenix 8y ago
That assumes that you can trust the networks you connect to. There is a lot of evidence available that there are a lot of networks out there that should not be trusted.
280.
by dagenix 8y ago
> Great so every 3 months when I have to manually renew all the LetsEncrypt certs I manage for clients I know it's giving them zero protection. I'm not sure I understand how a server certificate was supposed to provide protecti
281.
Chrome and Firefox Developers Aim to Remove Support for FTP(bleepingcomputer.com)
1 points by dagenix 8y ago|0 comments
282.
by dagenix 8y ago
That's highly problematic word choice that doesnt further the discussion at all.
283.
by dagenix 8y ago
The thread here is about HTTP3 - ie, HTTP2 over QUIC. HTTP3 has features that are going to benefit high latency, high loss connections a lot. Things such as speeding TLS negotiation, and only having to do it for one connection; better handl
284.
by dagenix 8y ago
Afaik, the bigger the router, the more likely it is to just route ip packets. I'll make the educated guess that deployment of QUIC will be just fine as routers already know how to handle UDP and IP just fine.
285.
by dagenix 8y ago
Google's home page doing 25 requests does not prove that Google spent the last 6 years and millions of dollars developing new protocols because they unable to reduce the number of requests.
286.
by dagenix 8y ago
I agree with what you have to say, but just want to respond to last second paragraph: QUIC basically is a new version of TCP. Yeah, it's based on UDP, but, that is just an implementation detail. If it weren't for various poorly be
287.
by dagenix 8y ago
Google has spent at least 6 years (and counting) working on SPDY / HTTP2 / QUIC on design, experimentation, implementation, and specification tasks. This is low-level, complex work that requires a combination of experience and tal
288.
by dagenix 8y ago
> But what here makes QUIC think that those other requests have any hope where the first didn't? To me, this approach seems like you're just spamming the link with packets and hoping for the best; those packets could just end u
289.
by dagenix 8y ago
> Google decided to fundamentally redesign HTTP to accommodate their own inability to impose any kind of discipline on their programmers 1) That is a ridiculous statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up. 2) The number of reques
290.
by dagenix 8y ago
TCP flow control is generally applied per-connection. So, a web browser that creates 6 connections to load a website is going to get a greater share of available bandwidth than an application that just uses one. And what will get greater ba
291.
by dagenix 8y ago
One issue is head of line blocking in TCP when multiplexing requests over a single connection. That problem can't be solved without something like QUIC.
292.
by dagenix 8y ago
That's fully backwards. The people with the incentive to delay moving to IPV6 are the ones selling IPs. Those buying - ISPs - are also the ones that have the incentive to move to IPV6 as in an IPV6 world, they wouldn't have the sp
293.
by dagenix 8y ago
> This is overly pedantic IMO. Practically speaking, a char will always be 8bits ... [List of some cases where it isn't] If you want an 8-bit unsigned type, uint8_t is that type. If it's available, going with it isn't &quo
294.
by dagenix 8y ago
That linked article seems to be a pretty clear editorial which seemed to me to have its conclusion written first and then the rest of the article was written to fill in the blanks. And all of the harms it's talking about is still specu
295.
by dagenix 8y ago
You can see it that way if you choose. But: 1) No one on this thread has tried to defend the classes of ads Google is targeting here. 2) No one has presenting evidence of Google unfairly blocking competitors ads. Can you provide concrete ex
296.
by dagenix 8y ago
I'd love to hear how blocking the ads that meet Google's definition of abusive (linked by Yver: https://support.google.com/webtools/answer/7347327 ) is a takeover of the web. In my experience, these are b
297.
by dagenix 8y ago
I fully agree with the sister comment by Klathmon - they are being pretty transparent that it's a group that is trying to further the goals of online advertisers. As an outsider, I have no inside knowledge of what Google is doing. But,
298.
by dagenix 8y ago
There is a pretty big difference between a legitimate ad and what Google is saying they are targeting here. We can't be sure if Google will end up targeting other ad companies in inappropriate ways - but we can remain vigilant. However
299.
by dagenix 8y ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at. If it turns out that Chrome doesn't block these ads, and there is some sort of reasonable evidence that it's due to some sort of intentional functionality to exclude them, I'd agree
300.
by dagenix 8y ago
I fully admitted I don't have proof of my theory that the vast majority of ads that meet Google's definition are scams / malware. Do you have any examples or even anecdotal experience with ads with fake mice, misleading click

More ›