derekerdmann

No. Bought in person at a Walmart in like, 2005

I once had a cheap Timex watch die from water ingress after running a track workout during a torrential downpour. At the time I joked that it only failed because we ran farther than the 100m rating

Not really, even Anker recalled a huge number of power banks last year: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/Anker-Power-Banks-Recalled...

If I remember correctly it's up to the client program to set up the session, not something to do with the vendor's implementation. It's conceptually similar to how an HTTPS client performs a TLS handshake after opening a socket before it can work with plain HTTP content.

Correct, unless you're using a self-encrypting drive the FVEK sits in RAM once it's been released by the TPM during boot. The TPM is only a root of trust; for fast crypto operations without keeping the key in kernel memory you would need something like Intel SGX or ARM TrustZone.

Take a look at Fretboard Theory by Desi Serna - it spends a lot of time on how different scales are constructed and relating different patterns and chord forms back to the underlying concepts.

It’s self-oscillating

When someone asks you if you're a god, you say, "yes!"

Static analyzers are NOT formal methods. Reporting no issues just means your tool didn’t find anything, not that your program is correct.

> Is rackmount equipment cheaper than regular consumer PC hardware?

Never

> 1. Packet captures don’t use the correct channel

I've also seen this on a 2020 Intel MacBook Air. I assumed it was a Big Sur issue but had never tried it on Catalina.

Sniffing from the command line did pick up the correct channel: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/49317/36875

Greater Appalachia definitely extends through PA in a T shape across the center of the state and the northern border (sometimes called Pennsyltucky) and covers at least the Southern Tier in New York.

Effective Modern C++ by Scott Meyers

"the FRBs were as blinding as flash grenades in a dark forest"

Just that much should be terrifying for anyone who's read The Three-Body Problem and its sequels.

I'm not convinced this analysis is reading the draft fairly:

... if you need to circumvent a DRM for personal use, you are now liable for criminal penalties. Traditionally, for many jurisdictions, circumventing DRM is typically reserved for civil penalties. Criminal penalties implies that the government would foot the bill for enforcement. In civil cases, it is typically rights holders that go after individuals."

Except that here's the actual text:

> Each [7] Party [US/SG/MX/NZ/PE/JP/BN/AU/CL/MY propose: shall] [CA propose: may] provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied where any person is found to have engaged willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of the above activities.

That doesn't sound like "if you need to circumvent a DRM for personal use, you are now liable for criminal penalties" to me.

That is not what the linked patent describes. In that patent, the base key in the hierarchy (the one created by the administrator, NOT the storage root of trust or SRK) is created outside the TPM and stored elsewhere, then imported and used. If the TPM is cleared or reset, then loading the key will fail and the base key will need to be imported again.

Creating key hierarchies under the SRK that can be duplicated or moved is actually very clearly specified in the TPM 2.0 spec, and is at least partially meant for exactly this sort of recovery process. The seed that's used to derive the SRK itself will still never leave the TPM, so any keys that are in a separate hierarchy under the SRK (instead of the imported base key) are still secure.

https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/resources/tpm_20_libra...

This is something Linus addressed quite a while ago: http://lwn.net/Articles/132513/

It also makes for an interesting redistribution of electoral votes.

C# also includes compiler checks to make sure you're explicitly overriding methods correctly: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ebca9ah3.aspx

Just because semantic versioning allows breaking changes doesn't mean Git SHOULD break compatibility.

What? Then what are the new Universal apps? http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/buildingapps/archive/2014...

Great idea. Stack Overflow uses the same concept when you're asking a new question on the site, and I believe it helps the quality of answers tremendously. Making contributing.md visible when creating issues would be incredibly helpful.

It looks like there's a misplaced space in "thea nti-circumvention provision of the DMCA", part of the text of the email you're sending on visitors' behalfs.

Or just "Bitcoin is at a new high"

Take a look at http://quetzalcoatal.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-software-monoc.... The author points out how GCC's monopoly, though open source, forces clang to copy its implementation quirks almost exactly, because it's been the de-facto standard for years. Open-source doesn't automatically make the problem go away.

That doesn't stop their need to work around the bugs in the existing version. It's easier for the jQuery maintainers to work around a Webkit bug than to submit a patch and hope that it gets applied in the next few years.

EDIT: I misread the article on how the bug was actually handled, and that it was fixed five years after it was reported, not that it took five years to apply the patch. However, it still is easier for the library maintainers to use a workaround than to patch the browser itself, especially when legacy versions still need to be supported.

This is public data from the USGS and numerous other sources. Why is it surprising that Wolfram Alpha is using it?

Believe me, as a current student, I know how it happened. This really isn't the place for this discussion.

No, this is a feature of RIT and a few other schools. Even RIT is switching to 15-week semesters this fall.

A lot of great discussion on this article popped up when it was first written: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4364370