I've been watching this very closely. I think this project will finally tip the scales and make it viable for me (I've had problems with many games when I attempted to switch in the past).
1,281 karma · joined June 29, 2016
• Certain days come up that I, the paying user, do not want to patch on. Microsoft wins this disagreement and I lose. This occurs in a glib fashion with a message like "Hey, just a heads up, we are going to restart your computer" (whether I like it or not). It is my computer, there is no "we!"
It will absolutely close programs with unsaved work if I am not there.
• Maybe I don't want the performance hit on my gaming PC. This is another element of surprise: who knows how bad it'll be? Certainly not the users if Intel and Microsoft have their way.
• Yet another element of surprise: I've had hardware stop working after updates.
I cannot wait until it becomes viable to escape the toxicity of companies such as Intel and Microsoft.
Microsoft will surely decide for me on my Windows 10 gaming PC. Better save my work (which I sometimes do even on a gaming machine) frequently lest the masters deem it fit to restart while I'm away having lunch if they decide I can live with the performance hit.
This part resonated with me, having seen it first hand throughout my career. Some of the most productive people remained under constant threat of being downsized lest they increase their output even further in some way, disproportionately compared to those in other positions.
• Polyunsaturated fats, the supposedly "good" fats in the classical model, actually go rancid really easily and cause damage.
• Saturated fats are associated with high cholesterol, which is a marker of some misunderstood kind of arterial and vascular inflammation. Not everyone gets an increase in cholesterol from consuming saturated fats, and we don't know why. It may be determined by the intestinal flora. But these "bad" fats are actually very stable, and do not appear to cause damage via oxidation as they don't go rancid easily.
• Monounsaturated fats have the best qualities of both.
tl;dr (imho): Have some of everything in moderation and with the due awareness of what you're having vs. your particular body.
Consume limited PUFA and be very aware of the potential rancidness vs. the effectiveness of antioxidants present in the source. Whole foods with antioxidants e.g. fruits tend to mitigate the oxidation of any PUFA that they contain. Consume limited saturated fat as per your propensity for LDL. You can't go wrong with monounsaturated fats, which are relatively stable and tend to come in high-antioxidant sources, and also do not cause LDL to rise. But overall, eat a moderate amount of fat.
Don't go too low carb as it causes a stress state (cortisol + damage-inducing free fatty acids). Get your carbs from buffered, whole food sources (e.g. fruits, whole wheat bread), but don't go high carb because it's damaging.
Have as much fiber (incl. resistant starches / FOS / FODMAP / "soluble fiber") as you can stomach. If they make you feel especially sick, you probably have gut fermentation (SIBO or similar). Some people like myself cannot tolerate anything fermentable.
Be aware of your idiosyncrasies, e.g. I can't tolerate histamines, so I must avoid high histamine or histamine-releasing foods like avocado, as well as anything fermentable or fermented.
Moderate exercise is superior to intense exercise. Exercise that is too intense is damaging and is linked with poorer health.
The supposed payoff is semantical nonsense, where the manager who agrees to deliver on the request doesn't explicitly specify that the cost would go up. But that's only because it's related as a summary, and in a real conversation, costs would be discussed.
Muslim people do not fast at night time. On average, they tend to eat much more during Ramadan what with the vast array of seasonal sweets.
The true difficulty of fasting during Ramadan is not being allowed to drink water during the day.
I'm aware this may not be a satisfying answer, but it's the truth, for better or for worse.
I would replace the word "concept" with "pretext." It has always been no more than a cost saving measure.
I've seen it given as an answer on StackOverflow, even when the question is not "should I optimize this?" but more like "is X faster than Y?"
We need to stop parroting these valuable, but not absolute mantras and use common sense.
Incidentally, I learned this word from Rust docs (lifetime elision). I'd never seen it in any other context.
You may or may not find it compelling, but I don't see the relevance of Redox.
I guess it ought to be reserved for voluntary usage, i.e. to "show" someone what is wrong with you.
I find that limiting all microbial growth, including that of "good" bacteria, is the only thing that improves my symptoms. This means eliminating all things fermentable (resistant starches, "prebiotics," FOS, FODMAPs).
This has been my experience since I started having systemic inflammatory symptoms since the age of 12.
It has wrecked my life in as literal and as figurative a way as one can imagine.
A lot of doctors blur the lines between their own hypotheses and facts. It's always "all in your head" until it isn't, but few ever admit they were wrong even after the facts come out.
Many also have such an ego that they prefer to concoct convoluted and implausible explanations for irregular test results and obvious symptoms rather than to concede that their prior implications about the patient's character (as being one who makes up symptoms) were unacceptable.
I would nonetheless offer the following points if you'll excuse the rambling:
- I concede that the following probably exposes a lack of knowledge on my part. I think most, myself included, don't have a 100% lucid understanding of how session cookies are managed throughout the stack. It feels like there is some degree of idiosyncrasy and magic at every level, e.g. client -> reverse proxy -> application backend (-> potentially DB) while JWT feels much more lucid and consistent in this regard. It seems desirable and simpler to want to transparently pass through all the "smart" layers that have explicit knowledge of and opinions about session cookies.
- JWTs come off less "magical" than session cookies and I find them just as easy, if not easier to reason about in certain situations, e.g. in an app rather than in a browser - I'm aware that cookies are mere headers, but I still find that slightly more annoying to manage than JWTs - although I concede that perhaps this is merely due to the availability of libraries that make it so, while also not being too "magical" and hiding key parts of the flow (whereas various platforms e.g. ASP.NET, PHP do weird magical things with session cookies).
But, you know, your post is making me have second thoughts about my position here, and I may yet be won over after thinking about this some more. I think this is often an underrated and unnoticed point - that there is some a priori magicalness about session state, while JWT is simply presented less magically, and so one may be attracted to the initial lucidity of JWTs vs. having to learn session state (because "why haven't I learned how automatic session management works after using it for all these years? It's probably very hard"). And I'm beginning to realize choosing JWTs for this reason may be specious.
- I find, in practice, that a JWT workflow's blacklists are still a lighter level of statefulness than having to propagate user sessions. As you rightly state, this comes in the form of eventualness, and it is indeed a security tradeoff. Here, perhaps my imagination (or experience) is lacking, but I estimate that it would in practice be difficult using SST for 1. To have a token theft; 2. To detect said token theft; 3. To implement security measures; in less than the time of JWT revocation.
- I obviously find that JWTs make more sense than session cookies in RESTish APIs, in which the desired workflow is modeled after HTTP and does not require a session on the backend (so the statelessness is not just for scaling). It's certainly a good thing to have a standard for passing a verifiable proof of authentication inline with every request.
It checks the "stateful" box in a nominal way, but it does not have the drawback of stateful session cookies that "stateless" defines itself in comparison to: in the backend, the session is still not in-memory or in-db on a single machine.
So you don't really go back to "stateful" except nominally; a very large part of the scaling benefit remains.