xemdetia

Yes, the common name and the no SAN was one of those problems. It didn't help that 90% of all tutorials to do a self signed CA only set a CN, and sometimes you had dependent internal systems. How this appears to people who end up servicing tickets are just 'Chrome doesn't work anymore' and having to answer many people that 'Chrome won't work any more until a larger business process resolves, and there's nothing we can do about it' really sucks. Also to an end user who might be a nontechnical administrator of a enterprise application there was no indication that it was going to become a problem, they just show up to work one day and they can't work.

I doubt that, because the number of times they completely ruin chrome as an intranet browser in the last few years with TLS handling, self signed cert handling, and general settings window changing malarkey shows that they are not even catering to that market very well, especially when they add a workaround and take it away in a very short window which for better or worse is often much shorter than most large organization's change control windows. Firefox generally keeps most workarounds working for as long as I've needed to worry about it, but Chrome's timelines seem arbitrary and the UI changes make keeping Chrome configuration guides a constant churn.

It's the same logic as refusing delivery of a shipped good when it comes to contract law (IANAL). It's expected that when a good arrives, the buyer pays. If the buyer refuses to pay then the good is not 'delivered.' In the transition to services the 'delivery' is the invoice you get and that is the moment you are compelled as the buyer to pay that invoice. If you start paying it then you have accepted the invoice as valid because you paid for part of that invoice. Given this the context of being sued would be that the seller observed that the invoice was valid by the buyer paying something towards that invoice, and therefore they should be compelled to pay the rest of the invoice.

On the other hand if an invoice is never realized because it's in dispute, then you have a stronger leg to stand on. A different way to look at is in sit-down dining. You receive service, you are delivered a bill, you are then expected at the moment the bill is delivered to review it and pay it, and if you pay it the bill is settled. If you have a dispute because nobody ordered a diet coke, then the bill is rejected and hopefully sorted out before a final bill is presented and people pay for it. The same sort of logic ends up applying here. If you paid for half the meal and left that has different outcomes compared to not paying the bill and causing a stink.

I do this by using the JIRA search integration with a prefix, and I have one prefix per relevant JIRA instance I have to talk to. 'j PRJ-12345' is what goes in the search bar and I zip right there.

I've seen some pretty flashy lobbies and interior spaces in Boston (Brigham and Women's) and Providence (Lifespan) where you get the hotel impression. I could not find easy-to-point-at pictures, but there are some littered around (best I can show is http://www.discoverbrigham.org/2017-discover-brigham-photos-... which looks like a convention hall but is actually shot at the hospital). As soon as you get past them though to the functional spaces it usually turns into the traditional easy to clean hallway systems, but some of the lobbies have that marble, high ceiling, hotel lobby kind of look. There are plenty that I have been to that haven't exuded that kind of feeling however (or were an alternate entrance).

I've been feeling like this for a while because at least back when chrome first hit it seemed like Mozilla and Google were mostly competing but modestly equal interests. Then Android took off. Then even the fringe browsers became webkit to keep up. Then about this time Google started testing the waters for this level of pushing through standards, and they've just kept pushing to what should violate something other than morality, but I don't feel like there is an appropriate mechanism to slap their wrist and push back. I really wish that most of these chrome standards would stop smelling as much "I changed it because it didn't work for my current project and I guess I'll force a standards change to meet my project deadline." I have not felt like most of the Chrome changes I have observed recently are given more thought than an intern/junior dev would give it and they don't have a Linus to tell them to stop breaking userspace.

Oh goody I just hit my first medium.com effective paywall. Can we kill it now and go back to ordinary blog hosting? https://i.imgur.com/Ii3VcfA.png

CPU utilization is an extremely poor indicator for whether or not your system will feel stuttering or freezing. What makes your system freeze is having more tasks to complete than can be reasonably scheduled in a time frame to as to appear continuous/realtime. Most OS schedulers that I am aware of do not provide special treatment to UI processes and defer to the fact that most modern UI's require many programs to respond in a timely fashion to provide a user interface and do not assign priority unless specially instructed. Most provide (relatively) even priority and have high priority interrupts like Window's ctrl-alt-delete and higher priority to kernel threads.

In Linux actual scenarios for stuttering/freezing are generally represented as a load average >1, and stuttering for me generally starts to happen when I get above 3 and I assure you no Linux system will work without observable stutter when you start getting into the 20+ load average range.

In earnest I have no idea why you tried to use a JavaScript based benchmark to support your point. Even after observing it the number of nonvoluntary ctxt switches barely even registered from baseline, probably from the variety of ways browsers do their own internal threading strategies. I could not see how to change that JavaScript benchmark to make it actually provide an interesting load on my system, so I'll just leave it at that.

If the scooter companies were playing ball, they would have a place to return scooters to that a tow team could bring the offending scooters back to instead of their lot. The alternative of 'dump it on a public sidewalk' is a terrible suggestion. If they get 100 scooters on their property are they supposed to stack them like cordwood and block a public way? I wouldn't say it is masquerading as a public service, these are just some people being paid for labour. A business owner would have to expend resources moving all of these scooters, so they outsource this effort to a tow team and ask them to look for compensation from the scooter owners which are the large companies in lieu of direct payment.

Instead the scooter companies try to defer all responsibility to the riders and charging contractors. The scooter companies have an equal opportunity to pay for a different kind of contractor to fix scooters that are parked poorly, or pay the tow team that collects them on behalf of private property owners. If the private property owners are not permitted to destroy/dispose of the scooters as trash, it is only reasonable for them to be removed and the scooter companies pay up for the nuisance.

Instead? They are going to courts, which they will lose. So they may try to get some local ordinances/laws in their favour instead. Once again it's just a gamble to hit it big before the hammer comes down, and I wish this scooter generation of companies learned from Uber/Lyft and work with the communities instead of just taking advantage of their goodwill and make it harder for the next companies to try the next big idea. I can't place these tow guys in the wrong here, it is unreasonable to force a private property owner to manage whatever non-trash things end up being dumped on it on behalf of the thing's owner at the property owner's expense.

Gmail is the #1 culprit for completely locking some of my lesser systems (i5-7200U). I also have the fun thing sometimes where opening a large PDF or Google Doc can take an unreasonable amount of resources from the rest of the system for processing. I had Facebook do it constantly for a period where I made the bad decision to use it for a while. I find a good bit of information from benchmarks for non-desktop processors/whole system configurations, especially when a new feature set/generation swings the difference between an i3 and an i5 for instance.

"Primarily because any modern OS will throttle crazy runaway threads to ensure UI responsiveness" seems like you have a particular OS in mind, and I would be interested in hearing more. I do not observe that behaviour on Debian 9 (and other Linux distros), Mac OS X, and Windows 7/8. I regularly bring any of those to UI stuttering/freeze from various workloads. Webapps only really breaks the lesser ones singlehandedly though (most of my other systems are 4+ core with 32GB+ RAM).

Well this is why I point out the community prospects. Most of these new RTS do a really bad job of finding people to play with and especially when you are new and figuring out how to play competitively in a new game you can have extremely high variance of success. If you are just playing with a small group, sure eventually a few will rise to the top but that's not the criticism I have. In older RTS like BW or Homeworld there was chat/clans/reasons to bump into new people for casual or ladder play. In newer ones that sort of community building tool rarely exists at the peak of interest. The competitive community creates other resources to play against other than known friends (the friend aspect for me was always the compare notes/develop new strategies/test things against each other sort of thing).

You comment that in RTS 1v1 and if you are having an off day you are going to keep losing. That's true, but I find MOBA worse in overall enjoyment if you keep losing. I don't mind losing 1v1 and can stop anytime because it's just me. With a MOBA one player playing exceptionally rarely pulls the odds in your favour where one player playing exceptionally poorly swings the game entirely in the other direction. You are actively incentivized to not abandon the game (socially and mechanically) so even if a game starts going south you can't just reset the pieces on the board and start again. If I am playing an RTS I can just gg out at any time without causing a problem, with a MOBA I'm stuck with one or more player's bad decisions for the entirety of the game which could stretch to 50 minutes or more. I also find that unless you 5-man it's really a terrible experience for hours in/enjoyment out. This is more a criticism of the current generation of MOBAs than anything. As a team game there are other kinds of games others can carry the game harder in competition and make up for a player's skill/bad streak (MMO, FPS). MOBAs also don't really have any lack of complexity in being successful it just is mostly an exchange of active skills for passive/booklearned skills so it is my opinion that it is not a good defining line between the two since if you take the net skill(active+passive) from both I find most RTS and MOBAs to be comparably equivalent levels of complexity.

I would rather lose a 100 times and be responsible for 100% of it than lose 5 times and be responsible for 15% of it but be hitched to the burning wagon the entire time it falls off the cliff (and have little agency in stopping it). I do agree that there is a certain kind of player that can't handle losing 100 times in a row and learning from their mistakes, and that's probably why there are less RTS games recently than there used to be.

I think that this CVE issuance problem is getting worse recently where as in prior years there was just a smaller volume of CVE's being assigned. This VLC issue is the kind of CVE that could have been resolved by looking into it (or better assigned/described), and instead turned into a problem. There are also a string of people using security fuzzers to find issues but instead of them being triaged with security in mind they are getting CVE's issued. Some of the CVE's after investigation are test/utilities, pieces of code that are uncommon to be distributed, and a couple times code that is never called at all and was a function that never got cleaned up but when isolated had a stack overflow.

As someone who was recently a security engineer the treating as gospel is a real problem. In reviews of new CVE's you always ended up having to do the legwork to see if it was even relevant. Older CVE's I felt like usually were at least tied to something mostly concrete but the number of times I find the security report and it's just basically a valgrind/fuzzy lop output I am frustrated in the quality of reporting.

The other half of it is the journalists chasing clicks and researchers who name vulns to increase their status. That practice has really been a lot of crying wolf and it's starting to show. We had to create a special categories for vulnerabilities that were named/publicly visible and may or may not even be relevant to us just to respond to inquiries (especially things that were named but mediums on a NIST 90 day timeline but people expected resolved day 0-1).

Do any of those actually have a competitive scene? I think the thing I have missed most in the recent RTS was the lack of place to bump into people like you used to be able to. It's the same criticism I give to most of the modern FPS which have replaced the tools to allow a community to be born (lobby mostly) with matchmaking. While I follow SCR/SC2 fairly closely I haven't heard of any ladder/informal competitive arrangements for any of those other games.

The problem with many RTS games from a longevity standpoint is that most RTS fans do find them at some point, they play through the single player campaign, and multiplayer is either stagnant/busted/a mere shadow of the actual singleplayer campaign/has lousy game cycle/no useful replay system. I feel like too many of the recent generation of RTS games have fallen down these paths. People always need to keep in mind when thinking about SCR/BW one of the tricks to making it competitive was running the game on the fastest speed to make it interesting and fix the game cycle. Most of the newer RTS's often do not expose such interesting knobs to help find the competitive mode in the stock game, or are missing map editors and other tools to help create new content for a game and fix perceived problems for multiplayer within the confines of the shipped game.

Yeah hopefully when FIPS 140-3 finishes we'll start seeing hardware tokens that can do elliptic curves.

What tutorial/paper/github repo/demo do you think shows the heart of why this is the best thing? I'm just not sure what this does better than some of the other strategies that are out there that are hadoop/HDFS based, S3/lambda based, from the privs/resources style k8s/cgroups/containers, or from the task based parallelisms that you can see in Apache Airflow, Jenkins, and other job runners.

To me there is a reason why twitch is popular and I believe it is exactly this feeling. I remember watching some more dodgy streaming services that just effectively were streamed playlists of shows, but you didn't have any control over the playlist. You watched (or watched part of) a series start to finish and then a new series would start and you'd watch that instead. It was a small enough total catalog that you often could pick up where you left off a week or two later and watch another chunk, and that was it.

The pendulum has seemingly reached the limits of self-programmed content and has started to swing the other way, and people are starting to realize the value of having a content producer putting on a good show across several programs.

Netflix also feels (by the way they are developing their internal IP) that they are becoming a niche (in genre) service rather than a generic appeal service and losing subscribers feels like an outcome of the catalog they have tried to pursue. The subscribers they retain are likely going to have a higher level of permanence compared to people who are a more general audience.

Did you find where they talked about what configuration options were given to OpenSSL? The benefit and curse of complexity is that OpenSSL can run on everything so what config options are used are very important. I struggle to feel like this is a reproducible benchmark as 'default options' for OpenSSL turns into a whole lot of autoconfiguration depending on the host OS detected and I am not sure what version of Debian they are using for this test and how that was configured (stock or otherwise).

What would have also been nice if there were packet dumps from each to see if there was anything interesting there as well. If it is like you say based on BoringSSL it would be interesting if rust did something different at the packet handling level that OpenSSL did not.

Both of these cases are the exact same reasons why I end up finding MySQL to be concerning especially going forward in time. There are just some use cases that in the current MySQL design with regards to locking that I feel like will never be fixed now that MySQL feels like it's headed further and further towards splintering as an ecosystem. These are the kind of extremely hard, change the major version number level issues, and with the MariaDB/MySQL/cloud MySQL-compatible frontend ecosystem I'm not entirely sure these things will ever get fixed.

As long as your application understands https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/internal-locking.htm... then MyISAM may work for you, it just should be relegated to the second tier option especially for new development. I feel like I have seen so many people overestimate the benefits of MyISAM when they later realize that they can't cleanly write all of the information in a single append unit and have to touch values after the first insert.

I generally hope people stop using it as a starting point and instead relegate it to a particular optimization crutch like in-memory tables.

In my experience it is easier for the people not well versed in RDBMS administration to get MySQL going rather than postgres (this was always one of the adoption advantages). MySQL has also been easier to setup on any kind of server compared to postgres, and for features like replication. It is also true though that MySQL (at least up to 5.6/5.7) has plenty of limitations in implementations that really let you down at scale or in some cases (only one index per table per query across multiple tables, single threaded select, query planner has opaque view to how data is stored). The query planner being separate has been a boon in other places like mysql-ndb and rocksdb as storage engines but becomes a constraint you become increasingly aware of once yo get in the 0.3TB and up table club.

Sqlite is also an inappropriate database engine for any system that requires concurrent read/write access for multiple processes. While most people probably think they can work around this most people forget things like event logging and last checked timestamps which is a requirement for production applications.

I also want to mention that I did not read it in the comments here but I feel like MySQL and MariaDB still haven't settled their differences while postgres (to me) feels more stable. Then you also have the feature compatible DBaaS like AWS RDS. Also knowing you have PL/perl or PL/python in the back pocket seems hard to give up.

Yeah part of me wishes there was a better payoff model for this done, but supported software. I scorn subscriptions often because it often warps into products I don't want so they can justify the payment or force a SaaS that is just waiting to pop and break it.

No. The way that you structured this whole article is strange. It doesn't feel as you read through that you are talking about the title nor does it feel like each subsection is connected in either way. Generally a reader expects: introduction to concept, hypothesis/argument based on introduced concepts, supporting arguments for or against the hypothesis, and finally a conclusion. I feel like you are missing the introduction entirely, so a reader has to assume the title is your argument (as sometimes appears in news articles). Given that argument you end up wandering through 3 sections that do not seem related to that title, and at the end I still have no idea what you wanted to say.

There is no conclusion or resolution to what was introduced so I still can't fathom what you are trying to share. It feels like a situation where only half the thoughts hit the page and since we don't know the context we can't fill in the gaps.

Our issues are in the actual writing of the post, not as much what you are trying to say because we can't even get to that.

Learn You a Haskell for Great Good ends up being a taste thing for me. I didn't really enjoy it and preferred things that stayed in the pure areas of the language longer and tried to demonstrate more abstract math principles using Haskell as a language rather than CS focused data structures and manipulations (I found a discrete logic preprint book from somewhere that was much more enjoyable). Real World Haskell at the time was then a decent reference to trying to do real things.

I would certainly try it but it works kind of the same as gotour: if you want a worked example of a characteristic of the language for a specific thing it's great, if you are trying to get your hands around the language by working through it 'cover to cover' in a sense I felt like I wasn't achieving the level of understanding I hoped for.

This is a weird non-article to me. It sounds more just like a CISO policy with SDLC components to provide reasonable guidelines to use the systems they already use and support. If you had a company hosting all of your source code on a private GitLab and you then found out a bunch of people were using the public GitLab, you would be annoyed.

You have to set some guidelines about what people use in very large organizations.

I agree that a virtual 32 bit distro is probably the only way this makes sense. I can't imagine that a project like wine has any capacity to do all the security updates and dealing with all of multi distro complexities to work around the fact that they could have wildly different library sets to stand on. It could potentially be done as part of a distro package for Ubuntu but it would be a single person replicating the effort of the core libs for ubuntu over again, just for this one corner project.

Either that or someone's going to have to rebuild WOW64 on top of wine? I guess that could happen.

I still don't get this. There have only been a handful of newspapers that seem to have tried anything different than the same model that they used in the 80's and they have done ok, but most of the newspapers I feel like I take a peek at are barely worth more than the paper they are printed on even if they have a solid Sunday edition, and their websites end up being trashy from ads, bad design, slow page loads, or any of the other reasons. Most of the articles in web or print end up being roughly equal quality to an equivalent mediocre to random web article as they rushing to be first.

In my opinion most newspapers haven't showed me something I want to buy/spend money on/visit to collect a few token ad dollars. Did Google really steal your money because I chose New York Times over some random newspaper with lackluster articles/reporting? I feel like even radio and local/regional TV still does a good job of giving me a reason to choose them over someone else.

Yeah, part of me wonders if this is just more a reaction to the apps market hitting the next plateau and one of the last impulse growth markets being kids apps. Once there is a special category it should create a new breed of app that would inherently get less complaints/refunds/etc.

In that aspect I wouldn't consider it to be a bubble, but just a subsidized product. What I think is silly is that LAN tournaments that used to be a natural extension of other events to reduce overall costs have turned into the same scheme as boxing/wrestling promotions. The game publisher's investments really go all the way back to the fact that the traditional tournament scenes from back in the day (kespa, wcg, etc) didn't kick anything back up to the developers and could keep ticket sales/sponsorship costs. Now they subsidize that market so they have some aspect of control and to also get their piece through various monetization schemes.

The reason why I suggest it's similar to boxing/wrestling is that really all you need to get into the market and trying to create an event is charisma, connections, and time to pull off a single event. It's not like there is an overarching master event planner for all events and leagues, it's a much more loose market and you may be able to throw a few big promotions a year. It's not too different than putting on an industry event like a home show, IT expo, or any other kind of weird infrequent event. Since the actual profits for those kind of events are slim at best people cut corners and be exploitative in all sorts of fun ways.

The question is always just going to be when are the subsidies/sponsorships are going to stop. A cynical part of me feels like there are a lot of people on the inside of corporations writing sponsorship checks are driven by people who are fans of esports as well- just the same as people who write checks for golfers or NASCAR.

> Modern games, at least as far as I can tell require you to connect to the IP holders company’s servers and often don’t allow you to pick and choose specifically who you play against which in turn makes it nearly impossible to build leagues and do team scrimmages, team practices, local community leagues, etc...

Most amateur leagues that do form around a game do use these kinds of features it may need to actually phone the home servers but online leagues generally just use default game functionality. I don't know any game that's worth playing competitively that doesn't have a feature for a 'custom game' or invite-only game. If it's worth playing competitively usually a group will spring up- it can be a hundred people or hundreds of thousands of people but those communities do exist from everything from soldat to Dota 2. You just have to go find them. Generally you don't start with a full team either, you play pugs (pick up games) and start to learn the competitive ropes just like you would in a more traditional game.

The downfall is unlike older titles where individuals rented servers and communities grew around servers easily, the lazy matchmaking that you can do nowadays makes actually meeting people you want to play with much harder than it used to be. You can play 10 hours in a matchmaking competitive game and never play with the same people twice, whereas you usually were playing with/against the same people all for at least an hour or two at a time. It's not impossible to do just is less organic to find people you want to play with at their worst and at their best.

The thing you are looking for is HLTV, which is something that has been around since goldsrc under sv_hltv: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Console_Command_Lis...

I haven't looked at the config/set one up since HL1 days so here is a relevant article to how you would set that up https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1990-UAV... and I am sure there is an equivalent one for source/hl2 games. It lets you set things like delay and so on and I remember it being relatively straightforward.