Yeah, I think so.
At first, Xockets sounded like a legit tech company to me. But a closer look at their website reveals that it’s actually run by a bunch of patent attorneys.
Yeah, I think so.
At first, Xockets sounded like a legit tech company to me. But a closer look at their website reveals that it’s actually run by a bunch of patent attorneys.
Part of it is the community. I really like the OpenWRT community, but it’s harder to engage with them when you run a downstream distribution.
But also I’m a bit of a hacker (in the traditional sense). I like to experiment with custom builds of OpenWRT. (And FWIW, their build system uses the same menuconfig as Linux.)
I love my Turris Omnia!
I got the one with the WiFi 6 card. The cool thing is that you can easily open it up and replace parts.
I run the upstream OpenWRT rather than the customized version by Turris. They are good about submitting patches upstream.
+1
From an order of magnitude perspective, the max is terabytes. No “normal” users are dealing with petabytes. And if you are dealing with petabytes, you’re not using some random poster’s program from reddit.
For a concrete cap, I’d say 256 tebibytes…
I think they’re just stopping operations of the company in Brazil.
But I don’t think they’re going out of the way to prevent Brazilian IPs from connecting.
Where I work, everything is on IPv6. Both the infrastructure for the software services that we run, and our own internal corporate network.
My ISP also provides publicly routable IPv6 prefixes over DHCP. Any layman in my city with this ISP will be on IPv6 by default.
I also use IPv6 for my LAN.
Like, it’s just kind of the default in my neck of the woods…
[S]hareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike’s assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.
I don’t see how they can make this argument.
Falcon is a kernel module. When kernel modules fuck up, you get kernel panics.
Sure, the layperson may not know enough about computers to recognize this, but it’s a basic enough fact about operating systems that an investor in a company like this should take the time to learn. It’s not like they hid that fact.
If you invested in a company without knowing how their product works, that’s on you.
Phone cameras tend to ramp up the saturation.
It gives the photo a more vibrant look, which many people prefer, at the expense of color accuracy.
But generally with artistic photography, you’re going more for a style than for accuracy, so I wouldn’t say it’s always a bad thing (though sometimes it is).
TL;DR - We can now control swappiness per cgroup instead of just globally. This is something that userspace oom killers will want to use.
Great photo. Actually, is this a photo?
Maybe.
Linux won because it worked. Hurd was stuck in research and development hell. They never were able to catch up.
However, Linus’s kernel was more elaborate than GNU Hurd, so it was incorporated.
Quite the opposite.
GNU Hurd was a microkernel, using lots of cutting edge research, and necessitating a lot of additional complexity in userspace. This complexity also made it very difficult to get good performance.
Linux, on the other hand, was just a bog standard Unix monolithic kernel. Once they got a libc working on it, most existing Unix userspace, including the GNU userspace, was easy to port.
Linux won because it was simple, not elaborate.
You talk about “non-absolutist,” but this thread got started because the parent comment said “literally never.”
I am literally making the point that the absolutist take is bad, and that there are good reasons to call unwrap in prod code.
smdh
Fair. But unwrap versus expect isn’t really the point. Sure one has a better error message printed to your backtrace. But IMO that’s not what I’m looking for when I’m looking at a backtrace. I don’t mind plain unwraps or assertions without messages.
From my experience, when people say “don’t unwrap in production code” they really mean “don’t call panic! in production code.” And that’s a bad take.
Annotating unreachable branches with a panic is the right thing to do; mucking up your interfaces to propagate errors that can’t actually happen is the wrong thing to do.
Unwrap should literally never appear in production code
Unwrap comes up all the time in the standard library.
For example, if you know you’re popping from a non-empty vector, unwrap is totally the right too for the job. There are tons of circumstances where you know at higher levels that edge cases defended against at lower levels with Option
cannot occur.
TIL. Thanks for the correction.
\1. Many retro games were made for CRT TVs at 480p. Updating the graphics stack modern TVs is valuable, even if nothing else is changed.
\2. All of my old consoles only have analog A/V outputs. And my TV only has one analog A/V input. The mess of adapter cables and swapping is annoying. I want the convenience of playing on a system that I already have plugged in.
\3. I don’t even still have some of the consoles that play my favorite classic games, and getting retro hardware is sometimes difficult. Especially things like N64 controllers with good joysticks.
Studios don’t need to do a full blown remake to solve these problems. But I’m also not going to say the Crash and Spyro remakes weren’t welcome. Nintendo’s Virtual Console emulators toe this line pretty well.
But studios should still put in effort to make these classic games more accessible to modern audiences, and if that means a remake, that’s fine with me.
(I’m mostly thinking about the GameCube/PS2 generation and earlier. I don’t see much value in remakes of the Wii/PS3 generation yet.)
They can’t even be punished. robots.txt
is just a convention, not a regulation. It’s totally not enforceable.
The only legal framework we have is copyright law. Those who oppose this behavior will have to demonstrate copyright violation, and that may be difficult to do since the law hasn’t caught up.
This comment is copyrighted by me and licensed to the public under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0. If you intend to use this comment for commercial purposes, you must secure a commercial license from me, which will cost you a lot of money. If you violate the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 without securing an appropriate license, I will send my army of lawyers that I totally definitely have to defend my copyright against you in court.
My money is on cousin Greg to take over.