Big ups for this -- since moving SSH to port 8022 I get zero bruteforce attacks. Even blacklisting tools like fail2ban can't get that kind of result. Of course it can't be the only defense, but I've always configured my SSH daemons to be key login only (no passwords). Moving SSH just cuts down on the CPU cycles burned at rejecting drone scans.
Every time I come across posts like this I consider maybe setting up a honeypot but I'm not sure what I'd do with the results other than look over them every few months for my own amusement. Are there any honeypots that can automatically forward information about the attacks to a central location?
From what I remember of my OpenID provider search a few months ago, not all providers have chosen to support delegation. Google doesn't support it, but myOpenID does (I went with the latter, then never used it again). But it's not a "screw up", it's a (questionable) policy decision.
So what's the downside? You almost never get optimizations like this for free. The post hints that this is also good for server workloads, but what suffers? Realtime would, but realtime usually involves a different scheduler anyway.
There are also drag cues: drag to the top to maximize, to the left or right to maximize 100% vertically and 50% horizontally on the current screen, or when resizing a window drag to an edge to maximize in that dimension.
Put differently, a 30mpg, 4500lb car gets 713e6 feet-pounds/gallon (30m/g * 5280f/m * 4500lb). A loaded crawler gets 756e6 feet-pounds/gallon (42fpg * 18e6 lb). Not so different after all! And the car looks much less attractive if you look at just the payload.
There's certainly interesting game theory at work here, the problem is presenting Arrington's "play" as factual news. I would consider grellas' meta-analytical comment here to be HN material, while the TC article actually posted here is just drama.
Anyone have a greasemonkey script to hide karma? I started writing one but got stuck on something simple. I'd like to no longer see the score at the top, because the instant HN loads my eyes gravitate towards that spot, looking for reassurance.
It's interesting to see how people react to walls of text with significantly less critical thinking than they do to shorter posts. I will admit that I was briefly under his spell as well, mostly because reading it all is quite fatiguing. It's also interesting to see that the author seems to write walls of text exclusively.
There's actually no externally-visible long type at all in Python 3, it's all done transparently now. That said, I'm not using Python 3. The promoting behavior you speak of is how Python 2 works.
Do you mean zoom, or changing font size? Because zoom scales everything, images included. Scaling affects only text, and ideally, things that are sized relative to the text (but not pixels).
I agree that it's a sensible behavior -- I've always wondered why the 'px' unit even exists if it scales just like everything else. That said, what does the CSS standard say?
I do wish there were a syntax for Decimal literals, e.g. 0.1D (analogous to 100L as long, etc.). Maybe I'll make it my weekend project even if I don't really expect it to be accepted into CPython proper.
On the other hand, as of this writing this complaint post has 131 points. That seems to suggest that more people are against the offer posts than for them. Curiously, the only post on the frontpage now with more posts is "Things Paul Graham is Wrong About", another post with a flamebait title. Not surprisingly, flamebait attracts the upvotes!
No, the core of a stock exchange resides entirely in RAM. Everything is reset once a day (overnight for stocks, immediately after regular hours for futures), and brokerages are responsible for resubmitting long-lived "good 'til cancelled" orders each day before the session begins.
Despite being RAM bound it's easy to parallelize because each stock is its own isolated exchange, so they can be distributed across hardware in proportion to the average volume in each stock. In other words, it's localized but embarrassingly parallel.
The only traditional databases are for reporting purposes e.g. who traded with whom and are append-only as far as the core exchange code is concerned. The reporting database is coupled through the same firehose feed that you can get as an exchange member, albeit with more redundancy. There are also access control systems that only come into play when you first open a session, and lots of other moving parts each with their own task. For example, if you lose your connection to the exchange you can ask a certain (non-core) server to replay all the events that happened from a given point in time in order to catch up. These, too, would be listening to the main event stream and spooling to disk, but the central exchange processes are RAM-only.
How do they handle machine failures? That's harder to speculate on from the outside, but if I were them I'd be running the same exchange in parallel on 2-3 machines. I don't know how it could be done without serializing the incoming order flow to make sure that each machine sees the same order of events, but it's not impossible.
It's a very interesting situation because while it's clearly a "typical evil corporation" move, it's one that's objectively justifiable given the evidence. Because I am anti-putting-sugar-in-everything (HFCS or otherwise), I hope that this will result in more people associating corn syrup with sugar. All the campaigns against HFCS should really have been campaigning against all forms of sugar all along and the association will (perhaps inadvertently) make people more averse of products with too much sugar.
It irritates me to see the same rehashed blog posts submitted every week, decrying the reign of male terror while offering no new insight whatsoever. I crave insight. I want to see fresh theories on how entrenched social norms can be turned on their head. But none are to be found on HN. My current, deeply cynical but so far correct assumption is that the only way to see more women in tech is to let social entropy run its course -- in other words, wait. I sincerely hope someone will prove me wrong.
Forget the clever domain tricks, even just naming your company "craply" in the first place makes me get a little stabby. -ly, -ify, and any other clever lingual arrangements are going to be out of fashion in short order and you'll be the oh-so-trendy company with the lame name. My only consolation is that these companies will burn out as quickly as they arrive.
OK, that was quite bitter. For some reason I have a perhaps unusual emotional response to certain patterns of syllables, like a useless sort of synesthesia.
You're technically correct -- the best kind of correct. The first thing I thought about the headline as I clicked it was "that's a rather irresponsible thing to say" because it's generally impossible to prove that a given thing is impossible without taking assumptions as fact. In this case the assumption was that the only kinds of cancer in question were the ones we already know about, which is certainly not true. That said, the probability of a correlation, let alone causation, between cell phones and cancer is effectively zero, and for now that has to be good enough.
It's the sites that shouldn't depend on JS that irritate me. Sites that load completely static content, dynamically. Newspapers where you get a blank layout instead of an article. They're more common than you think. I don't mind temporarily whitelisting a site to play with some cool thing but if it's something that shouldn't require javascript at all, let alone need to degrade gracefully, I often just go somewhere else.
Or perhaps they are less devoted than you to the church of HN. I'm flagging it, but not because I've seen it before (I have) but because of the hyperbolic title and writeup.
Even though I currently live in a U.S. apartment where the main rooms have no light fixtures (though they do have switched outlets), past experience hasn't shown a trend of not having light fixtures. Additionally, newer construction seems to have more fixtures, not less. This thread seems to be a circus of alternately overstating and understating problems though, so I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.
I see one (shylion #4052, top row) that could work with a little lovin' but yeah, none of those compare in the slightest. Most of them look like people trolling for prize money -- I'm not familiar with the site but any place there is a promise of cash reward there will be vultures circling the carcass.
This isn't the appropriate forum for such childishness. If you would like to compare and contrast historical police states, then by all means do so, but don't just put out the same trite "everything is ruined forever" bullshit.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it's not something that a "rational" algorithm would do, because the one that's taking liquidity is losing money. Unless they're profiting for reasons other than rebates, that is, which is another small but nonzero possibility.
My favorite theory is a purely technical one. I don't have much supporting evidence beyond the linked site though:
"""In summary, quotes from NYSE began to queue, but because they were time stamped after exiting the queue, the delay was undetectable to systems processing those quotes. The delay was small enough to cause the NYSE bid to be just slightly higher than the lowest offer price from competing exchanges. This caused sell order flow to route to NYSE -- thus removing any buying power that existed on other exchanges. When these sell orders arrived at NYSE, the actual bid price was lower because new lower quotes were still waiting to exit a queue for dissemination."""
The last two points are pretty weak. A CNAME results in an extra round trip to the DNS server, even if it does reduce the packet size. What the author did not explain is that some DNS servers can preemptively send the reply to the CNAME target along with the result, avoiding that extra round trip. You can see this for example with www.google.com. However, Google returns only one CNAME (www.l.google.com.) and it does not seem to vary over time or location. My sample size is admittedly quite small. On the other hand, one could just as easily skip the CNAME altogether and return only as many A records as will fit into a packet.
The GeoDNS section didn't even attempt to link the feature to the article's subject. Presumably the complaint was that it is harder to delegate the 2LD to GeoDNS, but Google manages to do this as well. When squeezing out every last millisecond of latency, you could do worse than to imitate Google.
And even if there were rebates (as there are on stocks) you can't make a profit just passing them back and forth because taking liquidity costs more than is rebated to the offerer. If liquidity hot potato were profitable then that would be the sole purpose of the stock market until the exchanges ran out of money, because it'd be coming straight out of their pockets.