fuzzybear3965

Oh, "wait for me" doesn't refer to an automatically-generated signup email ("me" is not "server I provisioned").

"wait for me" literally means "wait for human to create email and send it to new user".

Wow, yeah. That doesn't seem good.

I'm feeling a bit thick. Regarding the change to the sign-up process...

Originally:

> Users couldn’t get started on their own. They had to first leave their email address and then wait for me to send them an email with a link allowing them to register and start building their Cortado email.

Afterly:

> As soon as users click the submit button, they get an email verification message in their inbox, which they can click on to set a password and get started.

So, what changed? In both cases users have to submit their email address and interact with a(n) (automated?) registration/sign-up email. In the second case there's the added hurdle of a captcha (which sounds worse).

I had the same question a few weeks ago! Apparently, the delay between monetary stimulus and the time we'd notice inflation is estimated to be greater than 12 months. I found one of the sources whose abstract I scanned when I had this question[0].

Hedge: I'm not saying it's true or that I've verified any of the research, only saying that economists have studied the effects of central bank stimulus action on inflation rates and the economic response seems to take a while.

[0] https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sta...

Did you mean the reverse? I.e. "If it's one CPU with carbon-neutral electricity, or three CPUs with electricity from coal, the latter is the responsible choice."

If no, then why. I can explain my confusion if needed.

I'm planning on using core NATS (as opposed to NATS streaming) for a lot of my message queuing. A brokered message queue is the same as a brokerless message queue where message forwarding (brokering) is not performed...

Expect some loss with this compression...

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill, a high-powered class-action attorney hires a team of field agents to recruit disenfranchised gulf fisherman as litigants.

The field agents established a network of local recruiters to outsource clientele acquisition. Said agents bumble the solicitation of clients/fisherman, accepting fraudulent documentation from per-head subcontractors ($10 to $50 per litigant found).

So, high-powered attorney receives documentation for tens of thousands of fisherman clientele to support his class action.... But, they don't exist. Realizing this, he pursues the case anyway since abandonment disadvantages the small fraction of clientele that are legitimate (in that they are unable to litigate against B.P. in the future).

High-powered attorney wins the class action, ensuring to stipulate that no recourse can be had in the event that the clientele are found to be non-existent (the known case).

The U.S. government drags high-powered attorney and recruiting staff into criminal court. He defends himself and establishes a defense claiming himself to be a victim of his field agents.

Field agents are sentenced to many years in prison and high-powered attorney is found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

You may need a TL;DR for this TL;DR.

Flipping a coin if the vote is close seems to solve the voting dilemma... What am I missing?

So, I'm no expert but I'll offer my $.02. The difference between 5xy and 4wz type errors, it seems to me, lies in who has the problem (server vs. client, respectively) and whether or not the client should retry the request.

So, in the case of an unauthorized, unimplemented request you can only pick one response code: A 5xy unimplemented tells the client that the server is in a state where repeated requests will never be satisfied unless the server code changes. A 4wz type error tells the client that they may be able to run the request later, without changes to server code, and the request could succeed (depending on the changes made). Now, in this case, if the client gains all the permissions (so, authorized to execute any action supported by the server) the request still won't be implemented. So, the bigger issue is the (non-)implementation of the action that the client is requesting the server to perform, not the client's authorization level.

Also, a friendly reminder to everyone: authentication is not authorization.

Oh, and I haven't checked the RFCs, but this rationale makes sense to me...

Apologies for the delay. I rarely log in to HackerNews. Thanks so much for getting back to me.

> Where's your shift key, though?!

palmface I had meant <kbd>Tab</kbd>. But, you addressed this in spite of my mistake at the end of your response.

When I get Plover running with my keyboard and can toggle between modes successfully I'll send you a link to my explanation to get it started. From the looks of things I'll be cobbling together a few different sets of instructions.

I took a look at your configuration and there are definitely some things that I'm going to steal. Where's your shift key, though?!

> This whole layout resides on the keyboard itself.

This was a game-changer for me. No toggling between DV and US, anymore.

Regarding stenography for coding, I will probably only use stenographic typing for software documentation (prose). The main use for stenographic typing will be blog posts, emails, HN comments, etc.

With the ability for the Ergodox EZ to emulate a serial port , I can use Plover+Ergodox EZ as layer 1, say, and Dvorak as layer 0, without needing to change anything at the OS or application level when I do this (Dvorak will be seen as a USB HID which Plover won't see and steno-mode will be seen as a serial connection, which gets processed by Plover and forwarded to the OS).

In college I met a friend who had a MacBook whose keyboard layout was assembled using the Dvorak layout (this was in 2009). Roll forward a couple of years and I had met another friend who used his OS to map QWERTY to Dvorak. Inspired, I spent a few days during Christmas break learning a new keyboard layout. It's still what I use today.

Roll forward a couple of more years and I'm working on my Ph.d. and have the thought that someone must have done more optimization on keyboard layouts: Meet http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx. That inspired me to learn QFMLWY, something I have yet to do.

Roll forward to a few months ago and I'm experiencing some slight wrist pain; a coworker uses a Kinesis Advantage and recommends it. In true punk style (and unhappy with the Kinesis' outdated appearence), I endeavor to find a superior product. I stumble upon the Ergodox EZ, a fully-featured workhorse. I quickly become frustrated at my reduced typing speed and seek out a better solution. Cue Plover and the OpenStenography project. Learning stenographic typing is my next life goal.

This is a niche path involving one skill set: Improving the human-keyboard interface. And, it involved real-world interaction with people and the resources that people on the internet have provided. I'm convinced that either only in-real-life (IRL) or only online interactions would have inhibited my growth in this domain.

I'm sure that this same concept applies to every web development framework or conlang or beauty style or any human endeavor. As an aside: These ideas are also related to why I'm confident that an artificial general intelligence developed in the vacuum of the internet will not succeed relative to a competing technology that is able to benefit from both offline, interactive experiences and also online information trawling.

And before the wise guy chips in: yes, or a tautology.

Cunningham's Law victims. Or troll victims. Or both. Or neither.

How I can distinguish news discussing a processor core design (seemingly, usually, marketed as a "core") from that discussing hardware that I can actually buy (a processor "chip")?

I would have thought that 1. https://blog.westerndigital.com/risc-v-swerv-core-open-sourc... 2. https://greenwaves-technologies.com/ai_processor_gap8/ and 3. https://syntacore.com/page/products/processor-ip/scr1

would be pieces of hardware that I can buy. Instead, they seem to be designs for hardware which conform to the RISC-V ISA, which could then be fabbed by a semiconductor manufacturer or flashed onto an FPGA.

What marketing/technical terms distinguish the designs of these systems from their implementations? "Core", "processor", "MCU"/"microcontroller", for example? Are any/all of these uniquely constrained to describing either a design (on paper) or that design's physical implementation in hardware?