2) αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
What is easier to comprehend?
55 karma · joined October 17, 2016
2) αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
What is easier to comprehend?
I have been trying to comprehend and formulate the main idea behind the usage of this technology, for example, as follows:
OAuth allows us to use surrogates (like JWT) instead of the original credentials (like name and password) with the main benefits that once it is available, the original credentials are not needed anymore: neither by the client nor by the server
Why it is the central idea? Because we do not consider where and how the tokens are obtained: you can get it by USB stick or maybe forge somehow artificially. It is important only that access to resources requires a special piece of data rather than (traditional) credentials. The main question for the client is whether the server will accept this token or not. For the server, the main question is whether it can trust this client and its tokens.We aslo abstract from what is inside this token and how the server decides what to do - these are considered details.Do I miss something more important?
- https://github.com/jodal/pykka (Python)
- https://github.com/quantmind/pulsar (Python)
- https://github.com/akka/akka (Java)
- https://github.com/eclipse-vertx/vert.x (Java)
- etc.
Any relation by definition is supposed to change in time. So why do we need to introduce a special kind of relations? The authors essentially confirm that there is no difference between classical relations and "time-varying" relations.
Also, it is not clear how does it relate to EPL (in CEP) which is also based on SQL.
This explanation of momentum is somewhere between misleading and wrong. Momentum is about inertia and acceleration, i.e., the ability to quickly change speed.
This is precisely what I would do as an engineer if I was responsible for operating such kind of network infrastructure
|US invasions| >> |Russia invasions|
But maybe it is because of the difference in GDP: |US invasions| / GDP ~= |Russia invasions| / GDP4) The democratic way: ask people in this "another" country and if the opinions split then restructure it: either convert it peacefully into two countries (like Czechoslovakia) or confederation/federation.
It depends on how you define liberal. For example, Afganistan, Somalia, the Ukraine are very liberal nowadays: weak central government, weak central censorship, weak currency. Instead, warlords and gangs having the same functions – but it can be treated as liberal and democratic construction - you can always do the same and everybody has equal rights (kind of early US).
It is true mainly for one-time contracts where you actually might not care about simplicity at all. Enough is enough.
However, in the case of iterative projects keeping complexity under control has much higher priority including top priority for very big projects. Complexity and high entropy can easily kill everything.
- Occam's razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" (Leonardo da Vinci)
- "Less is more" (Mies Van Der Rohe)
- "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Albert Einstein)
It is quite typical for many countries and Belarus is definitely not the worst one in this sense. For example, the situation in Latvia and Estonia is much worse because everything is ok and fair but only until you have "right" ethnic origin (citizen of 1st class) - otherwise, if you do not belong to the titular nation then you are in trouble - the whole system will play against you.
For example, Turkey recently declared that they will buy some kind of Russian advanced anti-aircraft system so they probably think that it will be cheaper in long term than buying it from a NATO member. Yet, even in this case they had quite strong tensions with NATO and it is not clear if Germany wants to have (and can afford) similar tensions with NATO, even if these Russian helicopters are technically better.
Probably, they wanted to say that it does not make sense to participate if anyway you have no chances to win. Or maybe it does not make sense to participate as a no-name. Or, third hypothesis, it does not make to participate as a second-class athlete.
halb zwei -> une heure et demie (FR)
halb zwei -> half two (EN)- USA: crypto tokens are securities (under US law)
- Germany: crypto tokens are units of account (Kreditwesengesetz)
The question is whether "units of account" are like normal food sold in supermarkets or financial instruments.