dagenix

34 ms·

331.
by dagenix 8y ago
Go may very well have been through best fit for you. However, saying that Java's problem was that you couldn't upgrade from 1.6 yo 1.8 but you could introduce a completely different language doesn't make much sense to me.
332.
by dagenix 8y ago
Not really. Lifetimes are a language you use to help the compiler prove that all of your references will be valid. If it's unable to prove that, it will throw up an error. That doesn't prove that your references were wrong - it ju
333.
by dagenix 8y ago
The problem with doing this is that many other optimizations depend on inlining. So, if inlining is deferred until link time, thise optimizations will be far less useful. Take for example auto-vecorization. If we have a loop that just calls
334.
by dagenix 8y ago
But why do you want it? DNSSEC and TLS cover much of the same use cases - except DNSSEC is worse. IIRC, it uses 1024bit RSA keys - which are large, and yet not particularly strong. It gives you very little flexibility - if you own example.c
335.
by dagenix 8y ago
Is that a good thing? That sounds like a pretty solid reason not to deploy DNSSEC.
336.
by dagenix 8y ago
> and it's written in Perl I don't personally much like Perl for my own projects. But, why in the world would you care if some other project is written in Perl?
337.
by dagenix 8y ago
> Give it a decade and I bet the ~585 year time frame is reduced to a small enough interval where bugs appear. I'm skeptical that much changes in the next decade regarding where 64-bit integers are useful. It's been a long time
338.
by dagenix 8y ago
Something about the phrase "it doesn't get bogged down in theory" really bothers me. What's wrong with having a good theoretical foundation?
339.
by dagenix 8y ago
I really hate the phrase "over-engineering". My oppinion is that at this point, its is nothing more than a fancy way to say - "I think this is bad" (or sometimes worse: "I don't understand this, and since I don
340.
by dagenix 8y ago
I dunno what you are going for - processes function pretty differently on those systems, so, no, there is not a cross-platform way to handle that case since process handling is inherently system specific. If you are asking if there is some
341.
by dagenix 8y ago
That proves nothing. 1. It's subjective if the results are wrong. _You_ know what you are looking for, Google however has to guess. And it's algorithms aren't perfect at figuring out _your_ intent - even though they may do a
342.
by dagenix 8y ago
You are certain? Or, are you suspicious? Those are pretty different statements. And it seems you lack evidence to back either one.
343.
by dagenix 8y ago
According to you. There are a few other comments here with people expressing views that tue gun control article is actually the more useful result. Interpreting Google's ranking algorithm as a conspiracy to infrinage on gun rights is u
344.
by dagenix 8y ago
Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory ^
345.
by dagenix 8y ago
Google's agenda is to make money. Hinting that they have a secret agenda to take away people's guns is just unsubstantiated conspiracy theory nonsense.
346.
by dagenix 8y ago
That sounds like a you problem. Lots of sites use CDNs. Do you refuse to use any site that uses Cloudflare? Or is it just because AMP is easier to see that it bothers you?
347.
by dagenix 8y ago
> All the Devs working on this project should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Just because you are all worked up about something, doesnt mean that anyone else should be ashamed of themselves.
348.
by dagenix 8y ago
> it's that if we were collectively trying to solve the problem of page bloat, we could probably do a much better job in general than AMP does. There are a lot of people interested in reducing page bloat. Outside of AMP, I'm no
349.
by dagenix 8y ago
What about the article isn't compelling? We have an expert here, writing they are useless. We have various case studies of different websites using them and then switching away from them without any user outcry - again, showing they ar
350.
by dagenix 8y ago
> From https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html That link is about Show HNs - and this isn't a Show HN. What really grinds my gears are companies selling nonsense that is actively hurtful. And the article makes a pr
351.
by dagenix 8y ago
The article makes a pretty compelling point that EV certs are worthless. Google and Apple seem to think that EV is worthless - that is why they are removing special treatment for them from their browsers. Many of the largest sites in the wo
352.
by dagenix 8y ago
non-TLS sites show up as: "Not Secure | neverssl.com". The literal words "Not Secure" appear for non-TLS sites. Those words do not show up for EV sites. That seems like a pretty drastic difference. I'm on Chrome 69.
353.
by dagenix 8y ago
> No, actually I said it gave me the "impetus", which is rather unlike the caricature you presented of my comment. I'm not really sure how that is any difference than what I said. Google has made a minor UI change that the
354.
by dagenix 8y ago
> It also drives the cost of phishing attacks up significantly. It also drives up the cost of business for small sites significantly. If thats OK, it better have a pretty significant value. And, all the available evidence indicates it do
355.
by dagenix 8y ago
Its not Google's job to prop up CA vendor's business selling snake-oil certs. They don't see them as useful. There is compelling evidence that they aren't. So, Google is absolutely right not to encourage people to drop $
356.
by dagenix 8y ago
> And now Google is removing useful features that I use regularly The article makes pretty compelling points that almost no one finds EV certs useful. Maybe you do. Maybe you think you do. I dunno. But, regardless, unless the article is
357.
by dagenix 8y ago
That isn't true. Unencrypted sites show up as "Not Secure" which is different from how encrypted sites show up.
358.
by dagenix 8y ago
Except that HPKP is being deprecated by Chrome ( https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-d... ). And I'd suspect other browsers will follow.
359.
by dagenix 8y ago
Let's keep DST year round and ditch "standard time"
360.
by dagenix 8y ago
Yes, and yes, and yes. They seem to fall strongly into the category of things I wish I sold but I can't figure out why anyone buys.

More ›