saurik

34 ms·

361.
by saurik 2y ago
The two devices shouldn't both need to be on the one port 5061: we have numerous solutions to that problem at this point, from specifying the port as part of the connection to auto-detecting it using SRV in DNS. Yes: making some small
362.
by saurik 2y ago
Fixing the broken software that somehow requires a specific port and getting NAT-PMP deployed is a hell of a lot easier than redoing all of the software and all of the networks to implement IPv6.
363.
by saurik 2y ago
If you have PCP (NAT-PMP or whatever), why would you need STUN or TURN? (You still might like ICE, but ICE also makes sense to have on IPV6.)
364.
by saurik 2y ago
Fixing that network you had an issue with to have working NAT-PMP or whatever is going to be infinitely easier than IPv6ing the entire world.
365.
by saurik 2y ago
And yet, Tor--even in its browser form--uses three hops, despite not having global passive adversaries in its attacker model. I guess I thereby don't understand your thesis, which seems--to me--a bit muddled... you are saying Tor does
366.
by saurik 2y ago
This seems like a definition issue, with respect to the set from which we are randomly sampling... what constitutes the problem? If you randomly select numbers and try to factor them--which to me seems like a fair way to define the problem:
367.
by saurik 2y ago
> You can’t migrate purchases if both the primary Apple Account and the secondary Apple Account have music library data associated with each of them. Is this not a severe restriction? (I am unsure as I am not entirely sure I understand w
368.
by saurik 2y ago
I have never seen any of these two-hop designs (which have been increasingly popular recently) explain why--or frankly even mention that!--Tor was/is somehow wrong for believing its three hops is the minimum required number of hops to
369.
by saurik 2y ago
Supposedly, this is the non-code documentation for AWS Version 3 signing. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazonswf/latest/developerguide/...
370.
by saurik 2y ago
Huh, fair enough!! What's then funny in the context of this thread is that, while I am sure I knew that 20-25 years ago, it feels so wrong that it would support that -- and more like a "quirk" that it ever would -- that it su
371.
by saurik 2y ago
Is that really a "quirk" of specifically Go? I am pretty sure Java--the implementation of which defined a lot of how numerous languages handle this kind of thing--has the same behavior: you can cast String[] to Object, but not Obj
372.
by saurik 2y ago
I think the point is that this might be true in the long term, but, in the short or even in the medium term, it doesn't at all seem strange to me that living in the LA hills is no longer attractive if the entire region is just a bunch
373.
by saurik 2y ago
But using int doesn't wrap sooner or cause any errors at all, because it is automatically promoted to the native size due to this all being undefined behavior. Your example even directly demonstrates that, as the code had no chance of
374.
by saurik 2y ago
I am sorry, I am missing something here... are you saying that you are using a smaller type "int" so that it wraps sooner? AFAIK, the compiler is going to use the fact that wrap is undefined to promote that int to a native type an
375.
by saurik 2y ago
Just in case you are saying this to defend why you are using "int" instead of "size_t" (as, otherwise, I am not sure of your point and a I'll hope you might clarify it), you would then want to use "ssize_t&quot
376.
by saurik 2y ago
> ...another pass might notice the INT_MAX+1 and replace it by unreachable since UB code is “by definition” unreachable... I would love to see the concrete example where this actually makes the program faster, to give me a better underst
377.
by saurik 2y ago
First off, when you manually curate your world, you know what you chose to curate it for and you have to be are well aware of the world outside of it: it doesn't all automatically just happen in a way that can trick you into believing
378.
by saurik 2y ago
> Why the MIT License? > For consistency purposes. We're not interested in a license debate and will continue to use the MIT license, as we did with [our] Coreutils. Putting this much good effort into building a strong implementa
379.
by saurik 2y ago
Big tech often uses cryptography to lock us out of our own hardware and into their DRM schemes, hiding what the software on the device is doing and often even hiding the binaries. Updates to the software become ways to more often protect th
380.
by saurik 2y ago
FWIW, that chat.deepseek.com link at least doesn't still work... did it ever (for people not logged into your account)?
381.
by saurik 2y ago
I just use browser extensions to get a dark theme.
382.
by saurik 2y ago
I mean, this does still happen: there are many extremely major TV shows from the likes of Disney and Apple that are being released to streaming on a weekly schedule, and the world does in fact talk about them -- even on social media -- in l
383.
by saurik 2y ago
But like, the front page you and I each see on Hacker News is the same, the comments we see are the same, and everything is in the same order; if we talk to each other about trends in posts on Hacker News, we have some basis of shared reali
384.
by saurik 2y ago
They claim to, but they drag their feet, demand terms most researchers find so unacceptable as to be a bit immoral (the point of "responsible disclosure" isn't, in fact, to hold secrets from the public arbitrarily long), and
385.
by saurik 2y ago
Maybe it has been fixed, but the article currently looks fine for me on an iPhone.
386.
by saurik 2y ago
The problem is that people believe such promises in the first place :/... if someone builds a fully-centralized ecosystem that has a network effect benefit of any kind, it would be dumb to believe they are going to do it forever withou
387.
by saurik 2y ago
Apple's recent iOS Calculator update broke this entirely and now = multiple times does nothing :/.
388.
by saurik 2y ago
I realize that you are asking a rhetorical question, as the answer is supposed to be a bit obvious and maybe even mind-blowing... but I actually struggle to come up with really good examples. Most of what I come up with are places where mat
389.
by saurik 2y ago
> AWS seems to charge 1 cent per Gigabyte transferred for egress fees. I am seeing 5-9x that?
390.
by saurik 2y ago
Did you test at least +1 if not *1.5 or something? I would expect you to occasionally get blocked on disk I/O and would want some spare work sitting hot to switch in.

More ›