growse

3 ms·

1.
by growse 7d ago
Apple and Google don't need the passkey spec to mandate that you only use their services from non rooted Google/ Apple devices. They could do it before passkeys existed, and they can do that right now if they wanted to. What&#x2
2.
Maybe Nepo Baby – A Wikipedia extension that flags (maybe) famous parents(github.com)
1 points by growse 1mo ago|1 comments
3.
by growse 1mo ago
Flags Wikipedia articles where the subject's parents also have Wikipedia pages. Draw your own conclusions.
4.
by growse 1mo ago
A clock ticking every second is generating an event every second. If you sample the CPU usage at 1Hz, the metric is attached to the tick event.
5.
by growse 1mo ago
What I find confusing about this is that otel is two things. 1. A spec 2. A ref implementation Similar to other projects (e.g. python), if there's complaints about (2), that should trigger an ecosystem of alternative implementations
6.
by growse 3mo ago
> Summary: it's not DNSSEC itself, it's DNS providers like Cloudflare returning incorrect data to make responses shorter and avoid switching to TCP. I feel like we need the angry goose meme here. "But why are those provi
7.
by growse 4mo ago
> No one. I thought everyone was "trying so hard to re-invent PGP". > we do need a single key that can be used for all those things We do? This is not obvious. Why does my disk encryption key need to be the same that I use t
8.
by growse 4mo ago
Who's reinventing a tool that can do all that?
9.
by growse 4mo ago
> Everyone is trying so hard to re-invent PGP Which bit of PGP?
10.
Show HN: Aptmatic – a TUI for managing apt across a bunch of Debian boxes(crates.io)
3 points by growse 5mo ago|0 comments
11.
Screw You, Realtek(growse.com)
4 points by growse 5mo ago|1 comments
12.
by growse 5mo ago
I don't know enough about either the technical nuance or the political drama, but some observers have noted that GnuPG's implementation is (deliberately?) incompatible with the IETF's standards. It's not clear why. http
13.
by growse 5mo ago
Maybe your company's ISP is CGNat'ting you?
14.
by growse 5mo ago
A non-trivial minority of the time, they don't support IPv4 either!
15.
by growse 6mo ago
I do similar, but frame it in terms of dependencies. The database can live without the web server, but the web server doesn't work without the database. Therefore webserver ---> database. Key thing in that these deployment / co
16.
by growse 6mo ago
If I accidentally yank the power cable out of my load balancer, I can plug it back in and I'm back up and running. If I cock up my DNSSEC config, nobody can resolve any records under my org's domain (goodbye internal email!) and
17.
by growse 6mo ago
> As if DNS isn't a major contributing to A LOT of downtime. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing not investing in making deployment more seamless and less error prone. Ah yes. Let's take something that's prone
18.
by growse 6mo ago
That entire post is that you should enable DNSSEC because it's "more secure", and there are no reasons not to. "More secure" begs the question "against what?", which the blog post doesn't seem to want
19.
by growse 7mo ago
If you're in (for example) a CI context and do a git checkout @tag, there's no guarantee that you'll get the same content as the last time you fetched that tag. Tags are not immutable.
20.
by growse 8mo ago
> Why is entitlement to others labor the moral position, instead of the immoral position? You seem to be mistaking me for someone arguing that anyone is entitled to others' labour?
21.
by growse 8mo ago
The social contract is found (and implicitly negotiated) in the interactions between humans, ie: society.
22.
by growse 8mo ago
It's a social contract, which for many people is a moral contract.
23.
by growse 8mo ago
> CABF started imposing restrictions on the public CA operators regarding the issuance of non-HTTPS certificates. The restriction is on signing non web certificates with the same root/intermediate as is part of the WebPKI. There&#x2
24.
by growse 8mo ago
> [citation needed] My citation is the membership of the CAB. > IMHO "other relying-party software applications" can include XMPP servers (also perhaps SMTP, IMAP, FTPS, NNTP, etc). This may be your opinion, but what's
25.
by growse 8mo ago
The CAB is only concerned with the WebPKI. This means HTTPS. There's loads of non web, non HTTPS TLS use cases, it's just the CAB doesn't care about those (why should it?).
26.
by growse 8mo ago
> if we could of built it much closer to the WCML Knocking down half the towns that the WCML runs through to build more tracks carrying trains that aren't going to stop there would be neither easier nor cheaper than HS2.
27.
by growse 8mo ago
> But you write it as if it's in contradiction with my point, which I'm not seeing. My point was that a community is members + values + practices + other stuff. In the case where one member who wants to upend the values and pra
28.
by growse 8mo ago
I rarely see good faith engagements being immediately shut down with "just fork it" (you'd never accept issues / MRs!). Instead it's usually used as a last resort when the "exploiter" doesn't get thei
29.
by growse 8mo ago
The subtext here is that there's a difference between someone saying "I don't like this community, I'm going to make my own" and "I don't like this community, I'm going to change it". Building co
30.
by growse 9mo ago
I don't remember if this is in the original text, but is there a time constraints on distributing the source on request? If a user asks for the source, and the distributor says "sure" and then delivers it 12 months later, hav

More ›