clinta

A traditional proxy server is a server and a client. A server to the downstream clients, and a client to the backend servers.

Pub-Sub depends on the specific implementation. But anything with an open network socket listening for incoming connections I'd call the server, and anything making outbound connections I'd call the client. In some implementations only the broker is the server. In others every node is a server as they're all listening for multicast discovery messages.

A firewall that fails open sounds like a terrible plan.

As far as problems go, an outage is preferable to a breach.

The fact that it is not listening on an incoming network port makes it less of a server IMO. Proxies still proxy things back to another server that is listening for TCP connections, not to a client that has previously initiated a connection to the proxy.

Those are some interesting points. I'm not convinced that versions should be in scope for this sort of thing though. If I'm writing a protocol handler, I think it's my responsibility to make sure my software can update itself, and make the default behavior that it should check for updates if it is given a URI it doesn't understand.

Secondly, version checks assume that the user wants to run this specific protocol handler. I as the user might prefer to run an open source non-official zoom client. I think the OS should only be trying to help me if I don't have any handler.

I wasn't clear, I know it's legal today. I'm speculating about what future courts might rule based on the ruling today.

So if Twitter's moderators were supporters of the President and they voluntarily blocked all of his critics, that would be legal?

So is it the fact that a member of government clicked the block button the violation?

If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal?

The court has ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to use Twitter to interact with representatives of the federal government. But you can't use Twitter to interact with those representatives if Twitter has banned you.

The court does not consider it. Which means this is open to be considered by future courts. I'm suggesting how this might be argued in front of those courts.

This might have some interesting implications for Twitter's ability to moderate their platform. If the President blocking someone violates the First Amendment, then surely Twitter themselves blocking individuals is also a violation.

Will this force Twitter to allow all legal speech on their platform?

I just tested Firefox 67.0.4 and Chromium 75.0.3770.100 on Arch and both have the same behavior. Definitely not something I expected.

Bad behavior for unknown protocols is not a MacOS specific problem. Instead of registering things with Apple, a link to the handler should be included in the protocol link and the OS should send the user there if a handler is not installed. Something like <a href="zoom://12345" handler="https://zoom.us/install">

Do your wall warts fall off the wall?

Or at least force it to be an intentional decision to do it wrong, which go does. Exceptions permit the programmer to be unaware that the function they're calling could throw an exception.

Electron seems to me to be the ideal path for the future. It has some major issues today. But I expect it will get a lot better. Consider the following: Microsoft owns Github and electron. One of the best electron apps is VSCode, a Microsoft creation. Microsoft is replacing the edge engine with chromium.

I expect that in a few years electron will be a very good experience on Windows.

There is progress being made on allowing redaction of subdomains in CT logs.

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-strad-trans-redaction-01.htm...

And even if you use encrypted DNS, the domain is still in the clear via SNI. There's an RFC for encrypting SNI, but that's not here yet.

I'm nervous about what this means for the future of nginx's built in load balancing. That's been an important and rock-solid part of my infrastructure.

In the hairy world of Android things are much less certain. Encryption is optional, and root access is available which can be leveraged to backup the unecrypted contents of any app, including Google authenticator. I'll agree, an iPhone is a very good secure second factor. But I don't see anyone getting as passionate about not using an android for second factor as people get over using a computer. Which to me seems totally unjustified.

Especially since most enterprises own their employee's laptops, but not their phones. The administrator can manage and mandate full disk encryption on the PC. But if the employer offers TOTP for a second factor, they have no control over what device holds those TOTP codes.

2FA is protection against a lost password. It was never protection against a lost password combined with a stolen device.

Think about this scenario. You use Google authenticator on your phone, and have your banking app on your phone. A thief knows your banking password and steals your phone.

Now replace "phone" with "computer". I don't see how changing the underlying 2FA device changes security.

The only real danger is if that 2FA db on your computer is not encrypted. But again, the same danger exists if you use an unencrypted phone.

It's an FTP server, and I don't believe it supports PUT, so there is no editing the files.

I do something similar, but running plasma, replacing kwin with i3. I think a solid desktop environment with a tiling window manager is the best of both worlds.

Very happy to read about the improvements in releasing memory back to the OS. Hopefully this will help prevent our go apps in containers from getting OOM killed.

Companies should be making this easier by giving their users URLs that redirect to cloud services using their company's SSO service.

For example, employees access their email on office 365 via https://example.com/email which redirects to outlook.office365.com/?realm=example.com.

I wish there was some announcement about when HWE kernels will be available for 18.04. This page has not yet been updated.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/RollingLTSEnablementStack#Ker...

IPv6 without SNI won't really fix the censorship issue anyway. If you're not using a shared host with SNI The proxy can just query the host at the IP address you're attempting to access and see what it responds with, since that IP will only be serving one domain.

GOPATH was weird to get used to at first, but I gave in and I actually store all my projects, even non-go projects, in the same folder hierarchy now. It has made me much more organized. In fact here's a zsh function I have for cloning new projects into that structure. It makes my home directory much less of a mess.

  gclone() {
  		dir=$(echo $1 | sed 's/^http\(s*\):\/\///g' | sed 's/^git@//g' | sed 's/\.git$//g' | sed 's/:/\//g' )
  		git clone $1  "$HOME/src/$dir"
  		cd "$HOME/src/$dir"
  }

Let's suppose that it is government's charter to make sure that those who need water get it in a time of emergency. Restricting prices does not do anything to solve that issue. It exacerbates it by removing incentives for the market to get more water into the area.

If this is government's charter, then government should seek to solve this issue by trucking in additional water to help alleviate the shortage and reduce prices naturally. Either directly, or by paying private firms the market price to truck it in and distribute it for free based on some criteria of neediness.

I still don't think this is an ideal solution, but it is far preferable to government restricting prices and falsely claiming that will have any positive effect.

The people who will donate their time, gas and energy to supply water to those who need it will not vanish if we allow prices to fluctuate freely. But we do lose the resources of those who are not willing, or cannot afford, to donate their time and energy for free.

Empathy would be better directed toward donating money to the needy so they can purchase the things they need at the higher market prices. Price fixing may feel empathetic, but if it actually makes the scarcity problems worse, it's not.

FTA: And they compared these women's brains with those of 19 first-time fathers, 17 men without children and 20 women who had never given birth.

So the findings seem to be unique to mothers.