clinta

And that leak isn't constrained to the CA. Due to certificate transparency, that information is visible to anyone who cares to look for it.

If you're going to put WD Greens in a FreeNAS, run wdidle to increase or disable the idle spin down timer in the drive first.

If you sort a list of ULIDs they sorted by time of creation, with random order only among ULIDs created in the same millisecond. As far as guessable, you still have 80 random bits. Though I'll admit I'm not qualified to comment on whether the difference between 80 and 128 bits is significant when you're trying to make sure your identifiers are not guessable.

As for less chance of clashing, 128 vs 80 bits. 80 bits is only within the same millisecond. The 128 bits is for the lifetime of your application. Based on my basic understanding of the birthday paradox, there is a 50% chance of collision if you have 2^40 ULIDs generated during the same millisecond. And there is a 50% chance of collision if you have 2^64 UUIDs generated during the lifetime of the application.

Case insensitivity and the chosen character set is an advantage if you want to use this ID as a filename without having to worry about the limits of the filesystem.

It's also quite easy to set up Travis-CI to build your project and push binaries to github releases on tagged pushes. Pretty much the first thing I do with every go project.

Plenty of content blockers support blocking domains based on SNI. Here's just a couple of examples from a quick google search.

https://wiki.untangle.com/index.php/Web_Filter#HTTPS_Options

http://www.watchguard.com/help/docs/wsm/xtm_11/en-us/content...

Should governments be punishing insulting or giving offense? That's a very scary prospect in my mind.

Could we even have meaningful political dialog if, for example, it was illegal to intentionally offend Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

The idea of a right to not be insulted has scary implications.

Just beware of trying to use this as your main google account. You will be waiting months or years for new features that become available to @gmail.com users.

I suspect that if people weren't willing to break the law we'd probably still have alcohol prohibition. Making a law unenforceable is a very effective way of changing it.

I flip this on it's head. I only follow regulations if there is a very good reason to. Often there is. Sometimes it's because the law is just and violating it would violate someone elses rights. More often it's because the enforcement is strict and the likelihood of being caught is high so someone will do violence to me if I violate it. But that's just being practical, I don't respect the law anymore than an armed thief, but I'll obey if it I may be kidnapped or killed for refusing.

Even if government worked exactly as it's supposed to, the law would be at best a reflection of the will of the majority of people. But I don't give the majority of people any benefit of the doubt for creating just rules, and why should I?

Most places I've been have a distinction between personal or sick days (days taken with no notice) and vacation days which require at least 2 weeks notice before taking. Everywhere I've started I got 5 personal days and 10 vacation days.

Yes, I just kept it together for brevity.

Most of the time I end up writing if err != nil { return nil, err }. This seems better than a simple panic to me it allows the function to return, executing any deferred functions and doing any necessary cleanup.

If I had any complaint it would be that go could offer some way to setup default handling that simply returns zero and error for any unhanded errors.

I know the same thing can be done with try, catch finally but then you have the same problem of needing to know what errors may be returned so you can make sure an wrap that call in a try statement.

I consider it a nuisance. I have a good window manager (i3). It can tab or stack windows however I please, and I can navigate through my tabs of windows with the same keybindings across my OS. When browsers decided to force tabs on everyone, suddenly the keyboard shortcuts that work everywhere else no longer work in the browser.

Same goes for various chat apps that don't open conversations or buddy lists in new windows. Even vim, as much as I like it, frustrates me I can't open views to a buffer in separate X windows, no I must split windows in vim.

Window management is a bolt on feature to these apps and none of them do it as well as the window manager I'm already running.

I wish Windows and OSX had implemented OS wide tabbed windows a long time ago, then maybe these application developers wouldn't have felt it necessary to add these features inside the apps.

It's disappointing that i3 is constrained to one window. The ability to replace Microsoft's window manager with i3 and allow linux and windows apps to be nicely tiled together would be amazing.

Are there currently methods where unknown public keys are passed to a userspace application to be verified? Or is this something that will be implemented in the future?

The idea of Phase3 is that you have multiple node routers connected to a VPN hub. Think branch offices. When one node starts to talk to another node, the Hub initially facilitates the traffic, but it sends a NHRP(Next Hop Resolution Protocol) packet to the nodes telling them the public IPs of eachother, the nodes then negotiate their own VPN tunnel and start communicating directly without passing all traffic through the hub.

If I understand wireguard correctly it seems NHRP could be run using wiregard for transport, but it would cool if a separate NHRP daemon wasn't required, especially since wiregard is already tracking the mapping of internal to public IPs.

Thanks for being here, I have a few questions.

Does the server get a separate wg interface for every client that connects? Or does it do something like multipoint GRE interfaces with next hop addresses in the arp table?

Does this do a DH key agreement to guarantee forward secrecy or does it literally encrypt the packet with the peers public key?

Also is it in the scope of this project for peers to discover each other for direct communication, like a Phase3 DMVPN?

The indicator that tells the machine that "This card is a chip card" is a single bit on the mag stripe. Turn that bit off when cloning the card and the machine never knows it should have asked for a chip.

A comparison with Nazis is often just a Reductio ad absurdum, and it's particularly effective and useful because despite how absurd it sounds, it actually happened.

If you think the reduction is inaccurate, then argue the point, but just dismissing it by calling it Godwin's law, in my mind, admits that you don't have an effective counter-argument.

And then the company that does hire him will be vilified here for hiring H1B workers.

Does that make it okay? Do the reasons we find it socially unacceptable in other instances apply to journalists?

I'd like to run Gitlab on FreeBSD and never could get it working. So for my side work projects where all the hosting is on FreeBSD I'm using Gogs. A port would fix that.

And tcpdump already exists on every server. I frequently pipe the output of tcpdump over ssh into wireshark for analysis on my local machine.

ssh root@HOST tcpdump -U -s0 -w - 'not port 22' | wireshark -k -i -

With good scaling, performance and battery life are related. If the CPU can quickly finish what you ask it to do and get back into a low power state you can get better battery life.

The costs to publish the law is a total non-sequiter. Being expensive to publish doesn't make something copyrightable. It is expensive to publish any number of public domain works, that doesn't take them out of the public domain.

And, not only are public domain works not copyrightable, they're none-the-less very available, almost always for free. Making it copyrightable does nothing to help provide access to the content, and everything to hinder it.

I think if you consider leaking usernames to be an important risk, there is probably some other problem. Your username can probably be easily guessed based on your email address or first and last name anyway.

My point is you are better off designing things assuming that usernames and public keys are public information. That doesn't mean you have to go publish them on your website, but you also don't need to worry about mitigating it if someone else does.

It's not binary, but if your security depends on your public key being secret, something else must be wrong. It's the same as someone who depends on their IP addresses being secret. That's not something you can count on, and your security would be better served by designing your infrastructure with the assumption that it's totally public information.

If someone I know and trust, someone close to me, says something, then yes I will take them at their word.

But media, and the law should not. The accused should always be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And the media has nearly as much power to ruin an individuals life as the law when they accuse someone. That power should not be exercised without good evidence.

Suppose a woman accuses a black man of sexual assault? Is it sexist to not assume he's guilty, or racist to assume he is?

We should give every accused person an opportunity to be presented with evidence and present evidence for their innocence before assuming anything regardless of the color or gender of the accused or the accuser.

Public keys being exposed isn't something I think needs to be mitigated. That's the whole point, they're public.

I use GitLab at work and I think the only thing GitLab is lacking is the community. What do you find lacking in GitLab?