dcousens

4 ms·

1.
by dcousens 9y ago
I think it depends on where you draw the line for the word "natural". If you include human behaviour, it is natural, but yes, otherwise it is typically known as "artificial selection" in this context.
2.
by dcousens 9y ago
Opposite experience here. Near 4-5x slower than actual HN for me.
3.
Are we overdue for a semicolonoscopy(github.com)
2 points by dcousens 9y ago|0 comments
4.
by dcousens 9y ago
Therefore, you could consider the "need" for this to happen in the first place, a "late-stage" flaw of capitalism. I think you agree with the OP?
5.
by dcousens 9y ago
Maybe the data usage would have alerted the infected.
6.
by dcousens 9y ago
This mirrored my confusion when `AES_cbc_encrypt` modified my IV data when _decrypting_.
7.
by dcousens 9y ago
Easy. Vim doesn't get in my way.
8.
by dcousens 9y ago
52 attempts first here, then 25 then 20... exactly the same thought process.
9.
by dcousens 10y ago
How does a code base become so cumbersome, without someone signalling that there will be a price to pay?
10.
by dcousens 10y ago
If you moved your scripts to 1st party, uMatrix wouldn't block it
11.
by dcousens 10y ago
Honestly, just being able to "tick" each commit would be great. On https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/ it is common practice to include the commit hash in your approval comment so you can easily review w
12.
by dcousens 10y ago
I just use `notify-send` every 30 minutes... https://github.com/dcousens/dotfiles/blob/master/.xinitstatu... .
13.
by dcousens 10y ago
The graph displayed of ECDSA duplicate r-value exploits shows 2 prominent "columns" of addresses, the latter of which was in April/May 2014. That latter column was directly related to a commit that I made to the bitcoinjs-lib
14.
by dcousens 10y ago
That point when you realise you're responsible for the data in someones presentation.
15.
Typeforce, another biased type checking solution for javascript(npmjs.com)
1 points by dcousens 10y ago|0 comments
16.
Code != Docs(github.com)
2 points by dcousens 12y ago|0 comments
17.
by dcousens 12y ago
You're not wrong. Thanks for pointing this out, thankfully the implementation already failed on a negative s value, but you're correct in that it wasn't definitive. I also whole-heartedly agree with your comment about the unn
18.
by dcousens 12y ago
Its not really a bug, the operations after it would still be valid (it is almost immediately reduced to the field order), its just that those parameters would not be akin to the SEC paper specification. I agree that the honus isn't on