lisper

72 ms·

841.
by lisper 2y ago
> So this hypothetical middleman will receive a packet, check that it's not a duplicate, and forward it to the recipient it's proxying for. That's not how I would implement exactly-once on top of at-lest-once. I would do
842.
by lisper 2y ago
OK, I don't dispute that, but that is a very different claim than "you can't get exactly-once delivery." You can (if you have at-least-once delivery).
843.
AI-generated overlay and rotation optical illusions [video](youtube.com)
1 points by lisper 2y ago|0 comments
844.
by lisper 2y ago
> Because you need to understand that your processing code is constrained by the fact that you can't get exactly-once delivery. Why do I need to understand that? Why can I not put an abstraction layer that provides me with the illu
845.
by lisper 2y ago
> The mechanism you're describing already exists. Yes, I know, which makes it all the more bizarre that people are claiming that this is impossible. > Systems which have "exactly once" delivery typically do so... Ah, so
846.
by lisper 2y ago
Why not? (Please see the update on my OP before answering that.)
847.
by lisper 2y ago
That seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Why should I care if the thing I get exactly one of is called "processing" or "delivery"?
848.
by lisper 2y ago
> Do you know what idempotency is? Yes. > This is exactly what he described. So? Idempotency and an exactly-once delivery abstraction are not the same thing.
849.
by lisper 2y ago
> you usually really want 'at least once delivery with acks and idempotent processing on the other side'. Why? I'm pretty sure I really want (the illusion of) exactly-once delivery, and it seems to me that I can implement
850.
by lisper 2y ago
If you can get at-least-once delivery, why can you not build exactly-once on top of that? [UPDATE] Apparently I need to be more explicit about this. My question is: if I can get at-least-once delivery, why can I not build an abstraction la
851.
by lisper 2y ago
And you should see the ping times.
852.
Information, Data, and Knowledge(blog.rongarret.info)
1 points by lisper 2y ago|0 comments
853.
by lisper 2y ago
> It's becoming ever harder to justify new models for normies. It's not just "normies". I'm a senior engineer and I drive an 3rd gen SE. I was perfectly happy with my 2nd gen SE and only replaced it because I w
854.
PDP-10 computer price list 1967(archive.org)
4 points by lisper 2y ago|0 comments
855.
Sundown Town(en.wikipedia.org)
4 points by lisper 2y ago|2 comments
856.
by lisper 2y ago
Ah, right, sorry. Polarity error.
857.
by lisper 2y ago
Why wouldn’t the same thing happen when the milk first hits the tea? Id anything I would think there should be more caramelization in the TBM case because there should be more heat in the larger volume of tea and so the milk should get hott
858.
by lisper 2y ago
Unless is a Tom Scott video. Those are almost always worth the investment.
859.
by lisper 2y ago
> most people aren't willing to don practical accessories that noticably change the perception of your face unless it emphasizes qualities considered sexy. Ironic related story in the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com&
860.
String Theorists Accidentally Found a New Formula for Pi(scientificamerican.com)
12 points by lisper 2y ago|0 comments
861.
Martin Shkreli must return unreleased Wu-Tang Clan album copies, judge rules(washingtonpost.com)
3 points by lisper 2y ago|0 comments
862.
by lisper 2y ago
> I got the sense he kept good notes because he would speak to exacting detail about decades old cases. Maybe good notes, but also maybe good staff writers. > there was a necklace that was dropped. How did he know that it was dropped
863.
by lisper 2y ago
Thanks!
864.
by lisper 2y ago
Does anyone make a usb floppy drive capable of reading Mac disks? I would be willing to pay quite a lot for one.
865.
by lisper 2y ago
> anyone who is conscientious and capable can do this Anyone who is conscientious and capable can navigate the traditional banking system too. In fact, that's pretty much what "capable" means . > in traditional bank
866.
by lisper 2y ago
> having access to the source code of your wallet, and being able to verify the data of Bitcoin's public and open blockchain is obviously much better than blindly trusting your bank and getting cut off from your assets at any point
867.
by lisper 2y ago
Maybe. How can you be sure the attackers didn't insert a backdoor into Ledger's source repo?
868.
by lisper 2y ago
> It's not, Phoenix is a non-custodial wallet. What difference does that make? You're still trusting them not to have put in a backdoor, and to have sufficient security in their development process that an attacker cannot inse
869.
by lisper 2y ago
> Install the Phoenix wallet That's trusting a third party. > get a hardware wallet like Ledger Again, trusting a third party, and one which had a data breach less than a year ago: https://www.ledger.com/blog&#x2F
870.
by lisper 2y ago
> Crypto solves this. Not really. It just replaces this problem with a different but equally difficult problem: managing your crypto keys, which is a skill in and of itself. And if you hire someone to do it for you now you are right ba

More ›