ninkendo

10 ms·

121.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
macOS 26 still has a hard kernel panic if you try to mount an NFS share with krb5 auth but don’t have a valid Kerberos ticket. 100% reproducible. Every OS update I try mounting with no ticket, get a panic, fill in the error reporting dialog
122.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Box<T> used to be ~T early on in rust… (then it became a `box` keyword, before being removed entirely.) They got rid of it because they wanted to move more things into libraries and have a less opinionated compiler. I think I agree th
123.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Sorry if I’m not getting it, but what was wrong exactly? Is the issue that it merely put “-- put the query here” in the reply, instead of repeating it again? If so, I’m not sure I’d even consider that a problem. If the goal is for it to giv
124.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Honestly, an extension seems like the perfect solution for this. Wanting a website to access your USB stack directly (or Bluetooth, which has a similar standard) is such an extremely niche use case that it’s probably better for it to be ava
125.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
I’d love to hear about the 2020 release of Microsoft Flight Simulator, which had an “active pause” feature that they hyped as a big innovation for that release. You could pause and switch camera angles and see what was going on, then quickl
126.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
In home networks, the idea of merging with someone else's network is... most certainly not worth worrying about. Maybe you marry someone or become roommates with someone who also picked fd00::/8? And you still want two separate su
127.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
T-Mobile does: https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-... They use 464XLAT, basically NAT64/DNS64 with some extra cooperation on the OS’s part for backwards compatibility with apps that h
128.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Stacked PR’s… don’t do that though? They’re just PR’s. You can merge just the first one in the stack, and now it’s not “all or nothing”. Reading the docs, I don’t see a way to signal that the PR’s must all merge together. Because the most n
129.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> Why do you insist on a different but functionally equivalent solution to the problem? Because it’s not functionally equivalent. Stacked PR’S only facilitate easier reviews by forcing you to make the layers of the stack mergeable in chu
130.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> But if those separate parts are large, you really want more structure around it than just a commit. Why? I reject the notion that large commits should be intrinsically hard to review. GitHub already has the concept of "code owners
131.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Couldn’t they do that in one PR? Seriously, couldn’t you just say “hey Alice, could you review the A parts of this PR” and “hey Bob, could you review the B parts”, then only merge once both of them approve? Even GitHub, for all its faults,
132.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> you have hundreds or thousands of files to fix. that is unreviewable as a single commit, but as a per-file, per-library, per-oncall, etc. commit it is not that bad Why is it intrinsically unreviewable as a single commit? Why can&#x27
133.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> - the first PR in the stack creates a search index. > - the second one adds a search API handler. > - the last few do the UI. So you're saying you're going to merge (and continuously integrate, perhaps to production) a
134.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Thanks for indulging me so far, by the way, I really appreciate this discussion, it's very stimulating. After thinking about the whole thing I think I can summarize my opinion a lot better now: Stacked diffs are a category error. Units
135.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> Sorry, I am talking about stacked diffs in general, not this specific implementation on GitHub My point is that the LKML and what GitHub do is so different that the definition of “stacked diffs in general” can only describe a tiny aspe
136.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> This is the model that the kernel uses Nah. The kernel uses a mailing list, and a “review” means a mailing list thread. With some nice CLI tools to integrate with git when you want to actually apply the patch (or start a review thread.
137.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> It's much easier to review five 100 line changes than one 500 line one, and it's easier to review five 500 line changes than it is a 2500 line one. This is true if the changes are orthogonal and are truly independent. One sho
138.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> You still end up in the state where many groups are assigned to the same PR > Yes, you can look at them, but your review is still in the context of the full PR. Why is this a bad thing? I don’t get it. This has literally never been
139.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> If you do this in a PR, both get assigned to review the whole thing. Each person sees the code that they don't care about, because they're grouped together. There are two separate issues you’re bringing up: - Both groups bein
140.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> a chain of small, focused pull requests that build on each other — each one independently reviewable. I have never understood what this even means. Either changes are orthogonal (and can be merged independently), or they’re not. If the
141.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
The autofill code is actually Safari's, not the password manager. The password manager basically just needs to impmlement ASCredentialProviderViewController ( https://developer.apple.com/documentation/authentication
142.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
It does require a developer account at $100 a year, yes. But that's it: Once you have that, the app is not time-limited or anything. I can just install it to my device (wirelessly) via Xcode and I'm done. It's probably only w
143.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
> The era of sharing some small programs that you made with others to benefit from is over imo. > You can just vibe code it yourself. +1. The password manager I use full time now is “Kenpass”, which has exactly one user: me. I have it
144.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Maybe it's time to pack it in? I don't just mean you, I mean that maybe this site has kinda run its course. The tech scene isn't the small, tight-knit thing it used to be. This site is now enormous . Discussion quality seems
145.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
[flagged]
146.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
Lots of organizations buy many of a single server spec. In fact that should be the default plan unless you have a good reason to buy heterogeneous hardware. With the way hardware depreciation works they tend to move to new server models “in
147.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
It makes me wonder about what it would take to actually create one. You’d need self-replicating machines to build it, naturally. You’d need some ability for them to mine from asteroids and process the materials right there on the spot. And
148.
by ninkendo 6mo ago
… not everyone uses the cloud? Some people, gasp , run physical hardware, that they bought.
149.
by ninkendo 7mo ago
Your argument started with “limited access to education” and is now “yeah but the only good school is UM”. If your standards are “must be more than one top-25-in-the-world university in commuting distance”, then like, maybe 2-3 cities in th
150.
by ninkendo 7mo ago
> Detroit is not as strong as any of these cities or metro areas with regard to higher education That wasn’t your first claim, you’ve moved the goalposts. You claimed Detroit has “limited access to higher education”. I never meant to imp

More ›