> request will stop accepting new features.
> request will stop considering breaking changes.
> The committers that are still active will try to merge fixes in a timely fashion
Sounds to me like the library is "done".
> request will stop considering breaking changes.
> The committers that are still active will try to merge fixes in a timely fashion
Sounds to me like the library is "done".
when's the last time Knuth wrote a check for TAOCP? Is it "dead"?
Those numbers across the bottom are your bank's routing number and your account number. I'm honestly surprised I don't hear more about e-check theft done using those numbers.
Those aren't secrets, are they? Isn't your bank account protected by separate secrets and or physical authentication tokens? You can't just take money out at a bank by giving a bank account number, surely?
You can seriously just say a bank account number at a bank in the US and walk away with a bag of cash from it, with no other security checks at all?
In the UK they’d make you enter a password or PIN or use 2FA.
You can use the numbers to request a wire transfer from the account. In fact, when you're setting up an ACH transaction for bills and such, they tell you to get the numbers from a check.
You can deposit without a pin bit to withdraw you need photo id and a verbal password or pin in every bank I've ever been in
We recently lost a book of checks and the bank totally wigged out. They demanded that we close the account immediately and it took a decent amount of back and forth to talk them into waiting a week (we wanted existing checks to clear). To my mind, this implied that they did no validation on checks.
I do know that I keep the numbers off a check from my checkbook I received when originally opening my bank account like 10 years ago in Lastpass. When sites that don't accept credit need payment information (my student loans mainly) I just copy/paste the numbers into their payment form and the money gets taken out of my account. No verification whatsoever, Nelnet is able to just withdraw the money from my account using those numbers.
I assume anybody with a debit processing backend or service can do the same if they have the routing/account #. It's kind of a wonder peoples money doesn't just disappear all the time really.
That's exactly what a check is. It's a legal document that says "I give you X dollars from account Y." You can use a napkin instead of a the pre-filled sheets of paper your bank sends you, and it's still the same legal document.
Typically your signature is checked against one on file, but only for large transactions, and of course handwriting signatures can be forged. And, if you are writing checks against other people's bank account, you'll probably go to prison. That is the check on the system.
(It's no different than signing a contract. I'll do this work and you'll pay me when it's done. What happens if they don't pay you? You sue them. The root of trust is the judicial system.)
They're allowed to, but have no (legal or socially expected) requirement to do so. I've never heard of a bank doing so for small (<$10k or so) amounts, and then only if fraud alerts are already present.
There's no serious jail time for it in the UK because the system doesn't let you do it in the first place!
Pretty recently. I just got one in the mail today.
Got one in the mail yesterday (check was written Feb 10). In fact you can figure out how many checks were written in the last month, roughly: compare https://web.archive.org/web/20200110074014/https://cs.stanfo... with https://web.archive.org/web/20200219035903/https://cs.stanfo... I imagine most of these checks (definitely all $7 of mine) were from finding bugs in pre-fascicles, i.e. bleeding-edge drafts he's been putting up online. (See near the bottom of https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/news.html)
On the other hand, while you mention Knuth and "done", TeX and METAFONT are better examples. He declared them "done" in 1990 (https://tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb11-4/tb30knut.pdf), but still does bug fixes:
> I still take full responsibility for the master sources of TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern. Therefore I periodically take a few days off from my current projects and look at all of the accumulated bug reports. This happened most recently in 1992, 1993, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2007, and 2013; following this pattern, I intend to check on purported bugs again in the years 2020, 2028, 2037, etc. The intervals between such maintenance periods are increasing, because the systems have been converging to an error-free state.
(The latest round, in 2013, did surface one bug: the debug string representation of an "empty" control sequence was missing a space.)
> I imagine most of these checks (definitely all $7 of mine)
The 0x$2.00 check I got from 10 Feb 2020 was for one typographical item in Volume 4A and one pedagogical improvement in Volume 1, Fascicle 1. So it is certainly possible to still get checks for material that is already published.
Since it is now 2020, anyone with bug reports from the typography stuff should send them in soon, wouldn't want to miss the deadline.
- On page 715 of Volume 4A, he had something like \`a when he meant to have just à.
- In Volume 1, Fascicle 1, there is a convention that the "main" entry point of an MMIX program begins at LOC #100. The convention is established early on and repeated throughout the text. However, at no point is it explained why LOC #100 was chosen (instead of LOC #0, LOC #80, or whatever). It could be gleaned through careful study -- LOC #0-#80 are reserved for trip/trap handling and one more location before #100 is reserved for a special second entry point -- but you basically had to read the entire fascicle to find /all/ of these. A naive user would be likely to try writing a program beginning at LOC #0 and wonder why it didn't seem to behave correctly. My suggestion was to just add a note explaining why LOC #100 was used. He agreed and you can find the added note in the latest errata for Volume 1, Fascicle 1.
Now every other house holds got PCs
They download MP3s,
People please be reasonable (yeah)
How am I gonna make my g's,
If you got my album before the release,
The quality's rubbish and there ain't no sleaves,
Do you have a source for this? Is this audio compression for music production people or in general? I just can't see mp3 being out.
If you have a suggestion for an encoding+container that is will work out of the box both natively and in every major browser, across every major OS (Windows MacOS, Android, iOS and GNU/Linux, specifically distros like Fedora or Trisquel that don't ship nonfree codecs in their default repos), I will gladly switch to it.
It seems like you meant it more in the sense of this library is "complete." Just in case anyone was confused.
TL;DR: at over a decade old it's a primordial Node lib which has become increasingly difficult to evolve as the platform introduces new features, so rather than break every user with a massively disruptive new version that embraces modern features it's going to attempt to quietly sunset to free up the oxygen in the room so that new libs can grow.