joombaga

33 ms·

361.
by joombaga 8y ago
Google and Microsoft both consider those to be different addresses. They just lead to the same inbox.
362.
by joombaga 8y ago
It's good to give those readers a tug. The skimmers aren't usually affixed well.
363.
by joombaga 8y ago
Pigs have the ability to feel pain. Many people believe we should minimize the undue suffering of sentient organisms.
364.
by joombaga 8y ago
Don't facial recognition systems generally use predictive models?
365.
by joombaga 8y ago
Indeed. I don't need it much, but the video and audio editing techniques I learned from making YTMNDs has been valuable.
366.
by joombaga 8y ago
No, and if someone could use that extension to run arbitrary code in my browser I'd consider that an exploit, even if "Added rewrite option" is in the changelog.
367.
by joombaga 8y ago
Can you share?
368.
by joombaga 8y ago
Are you using stow for some specific reason? Or just trying it out?
369.
by joombaga 8y ago
You can still know what you're eating in a highly processed food, right?
370.
by joombaga 8y ago
Yes, thank you for explaining. I misunderstood the context of your question.
371.
by joombaga 8y ago
Because I have not been provided sufficient evidence to convince me.
372.
by joombaga 8y ago
Why do you think this?
373.
by joombaga 8y ago
That's correct. "serverless" does not mean "does not run on a server". It means the cloud provider handles server allocation. It's a misnomer.
374.
by joombaga 8y ago
First, thanks for engaging! I appreciate getting corrected on this. > Not really. I did expound on this in the very comment you replied to. I agree with your expounding. Perhaps I'm not seeing where you addressed my concern, but the
375.
by joombaga 8y ago
> The problem is that if you call all attacks that, what do you call the attack where asymmetric key exchange is being replicated by some attacker in the middle? You use a more exact term. I don't see the problem.
376.
by joombaga 8y ago
> The OWASP definition is correct. Okay. Your definition, with its additional encryption requirement, is at odds with the OWASP definition. > Without encryption how do you trust that the destination is who they claim to be? Signing? O
377.
by joombaga 8y ago
You can improve this comment but removing the question and providing a source for your claim.
378.
by joombaga 8y ago
No. Why should it?
379.
by joombaga 8y ago
https://github.com/generative-music
380.
by joombaga 8y ago
I didn't have a CD burner, so I had it on ~11 floppy disks.
381.
by joombaga 8y ago
> Web browsers already implement a ‘near miss that’s probably intentionally confusing” check on domains, What do they do with the information?
382.
by joombaga 8y ago
Where X = (e.g.) bankofamerica? Or X = mother's name? Either way, yikes.
383.
by joombaga 8y ago
Yeah, but we still think of them as ephemeral. I mean if a colleague lost work from open tabs I'd put a larger portion of the blame on them than if their hard drive dies and they lose bookmarks.
384.
by joombaga 8y ago
> there's always a kind of in-between state where you aren't quite sure what you want to do with a tab. It feels like that's the state I'm in with regard to most tabs. It also feels like these tabs are more important
385.
by joombaga 8y ago
Credit card chargebacks to the Google store can do it.
386.
by joombaga 8y ago
Their users would not be in violation of the TOS. > The following is not permitted for any reason whatsoever: ... > 10. circumventing or blocking advertisements in the Spotify Service, or creating or distributing tools designed to blo
387.
by joombaga 8y ago
How do they know when a cert is issued for your domain? Edit: I never knew about this! https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962
388.
by joombaga 8y ago
You could ask them to press it. "Excuse me, could you press the crossing button?" There are few strangers to social awkwardness.
389.
by joombaga 8y ago
Those environments tend to MITM https traffic as well. At least the companies I've worked for can.
390.
by joombaga 8y ago
Nope! Looks like I was wrong. I was never able to get it working on Gnome without the upscale/downscale workaround suggested in your link (resulting in terribly degraded image quality), but perhaps that is the fault of Gnome/GTK.

More ›