2,740 karma · joined June 29, 2016
But we have to suffer through this awkward phase where people want to have it both ways. They don't want to run a successful collaborative development project, but the want the imagined accolades.
It's hard to really comprehend. It's a bit like people wanting to have fame as musicians for successfully pressing the buttons on a jukebox?
After Ultra High, we could have had Jumbo, Colossal, Super Colossal. and Mammoth frequency ranges.
Not to be confused with Colossal wavelengths, which is what we could have used if we need to fiddle around below Extremely Low frequencies..
So, you should get into RAM futures if you believe this is more than a transient arbitrage sort of situation. All extant RAM will become obsolete as the demand shifts to newer, fancier versions.
But, putting panels between the rails seems foolhardy to me too.
Then I went off and did distributed systems and HPC work for a decade or two, and the closest I got to "databases" was when we had to interact with LDAP. But, eventually our R&D contracts shifted and we were mixing with bioinformatics people. Then, we had a need for structured metadata management, and RDBMS seems like the right tool. So I finally had a reason to teach myself SQL, with a range of OLTP and analytics sorts of workloads on PostgreSQL.
I have found the existing ORMs in our Python landscape to be really alien and off-putting. I much prefer using the lower-level DB connector and doing my own SQL query building. We also do a bunch of generic/polymorphic work, defeating the main theses of ORMs. Mostly, our schemas are not known at development time, rather they change dynamically. There is no sense in mapping schema to classes, since a developer would have no contact with such classes. Instead, our code has to do "metaprogramming" about table definitions, keying, and reference patterns at runtime.
This was supposed to be running the DACs to match the source configuration, not resampling into some common format. I think that is an unavoidable part of the whole end-to-end ABX test concept.
Maybe it would be interesting to up-sample back into 24/192 and play both in that mode. But then people would argue about what type of up-sample to use.
I was in my mid 20s for this test. I understand my high-band hearing was better back then.
In this case, it was my brother's own 24/192 recording, down-mixed by him to CD format with the intent that it be transparent. I believe he said his software was supposed to be dithering, but this was ~25 years ago and I can't really confirm the details anymore.
I also spent a lot of time ripping my old CDs to FLAC and trying different MP3 and AAC encoder settings to get playback that felt transparent enough to me. I could never tolerate Sirius/XM radio streaming due to the horrid compression I heard with every futile attempt. I still seem to have more sensitive hearing than most people around me, but in my 50s I know it isn't what it once was.
I never had huge budgets, but did strive for hi-fi in my limited ways. I used things like toslink and HDMI to send raw PCM data from Linux to my Yamaha A/V receiver's DACs + amplifier to drive somewhat nice Polk tower speakers. But then COVID-19 happened, and this stuff was packed up to move house.
Nowadays, music playback is streaming with mundane "subwoofer + satellite" PC speakers or MP3 playback with a mini-SD card permanently parked in my car's infotainment system.
You saw things in their threaded context, but it remembered what you've read and there is a direct action to "go to next unread" that will jump around and follow the fringe. You don't have to open individual root posts.
It wouldn't work so well if you expect to read sparsely though. People used moderation and killfiles to prune out garbage. The death of USENET was in many ways the flood of posts that made this no longer feasible.
The other missing thing here is topics, i.e. newsgroups. HN is not as broad as USENET as a whole, but also not as narrow as one newsgroup. These groups are what you would open, then skim through all the messages in that forest, catching up on what is new since last visit. HN topics are too narrow to want to bother reopening each one to catch up, but there is no collective layer above them to help find your own sparse subset of worthwhile HN conversations.
When I do think with words, it is usually something I am manipulating with a purpose. It is not the thoughts themselves. I have a thought, and I attempt to render it into words.
Outside of recollection of past speech, it is extremely rare for me to feel like words arrive with a thought I wasn't already holding. Most often, it happens when making jokes and puns in real-time. I am in a mood to be playful, and may have a vague feeling that there is something funny to interject, but cannot separate it from the word combination that comes to mind.
But I can't really think and deliberate verbally. It feels like an act of puppetry.
I was able to run X Windows, Emacs, and gcc for university CS work. I had to use 8 bit psuedocolor graphics to have a decent sized desktop like 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (on a nice CRT).
But, I put it into a swapping frenzy by opening one JPEG that I had downloaded from an academic website. It was a high-resolution scan of some old manuscript, but probably lower pixel count than a typical smartphone photo from this decade.
Doing normal work also involved frequent swapping delays as you launched new programs and evicted old ones.
My dad brought home a circus of different PCs in those years. First a Sinclair ZX80 kit; a VIC 20; several Morrow Designs CP/M machines; Apple III, with a IIe emulator card; this interesting sequence terminated when he hit DOS/Windows and got stuck there.
He was a pack-rat too. I pulled a CP/M machine's terminal out of storage and used it with my first Linux PC in college. It turned out it worked with an "adm31a" (?) termcap entry...
But, a potential sender with important messages still needs do some pre-flight email verification over this path, e.g. sending a verification code encrypted the same way, to validate that the intended user can read it and send it back via another authenticated channel. This ensures that the sender-specific user identity actually possesses control of that email address and the discovered private key. It also reduces the impact of a malicious email provider to only denial-of-service rather than content interception.
So, is that discovery protocol worth it, versus just having an opt-in setting where the user supplies their desired public key and email address in the same form?
What that has to do with this article about a new device driver for the EMACS OS, I don't quite know...
But that is months away, so not my problem?
But, you're saying all these remote devices individually connect "back" to the central host to keep a tunnel open?
Honestly, I've never had this problem at large scale. When I did have it, I used one of these methods rather than SSH TCP tunneling tricks:
1. I'm in control of the firewall/NAT router itself, deployed OpenWRT, and setup the port-forwarding rules there (i.e. iptables address rewriting).
2. I really need to punch through uncooperative NAT, so I setup OpenVPN with that remote device initiating the persistent tunnel.
Here's my ad-hoc proxy. Use it for only these domains (while everything else goes direct).
After I complete my special tunneling task, I'm going to flip it back to "no proxy" and resume normal life.
Then, it seems naive and problematic to think you can take a personal chunk of territory with you after renouncement. At the very least, I think this is akin to trying to unilaterally drop an easement from a property deed. These territories were committed in perpetuity, not loaned with an expiration or compensation clause.
Acting collectively, it is still just many people deciding to renounce. Why would the territory go with them either? This tension is what makes it a revolutionary act.
I need VPN to get into some internal resources via SSH, but there are lots of external/public/AWS resources I also need to access, and the full VPN adds too much overhead and fragility for those.
Using the available split VPN, I can point a browser instance at a localhost SOCKS proxy port to relay over SSH + VPN for other web resources I need to access internally.
Unfortunately, Firefox proxy config rules are sort of backwards for my needs. I want to say "only use proxy for these 3 domains" whereas it wants to use the proxy by default and only allow me to bypass specific domains.
Particularly, you can use name patterns to apply the same rule broadly, assuming you have some systematic naming scheme for your eventual target devices.
Because the jump mechanism works via use of TCP forwarding, each host authn step is talking "directly" to your client. Importantly, this means it still works without requiring "agent forwarding" for the connection you are making.
It is also nice that it works recursively, so I can logically structure my rules so that the one for my regular targets say to use bastion1, then the rule for bastion1 says to go via bastion 2, etc.
I find this easier to reason about and maintain rather than juggling a bunch of these multi-step rules.
I've been naively assuming they are now making high quality vias, so that circuit characteristics would be similar in either vertical or horizontal direction.
I am geeky enough to use PGP or S/MIME if they had the option, but I can definitely see how vendors would see this as too fringe with retail customers. I would not like the typical "secure email" which is nothing more than a volatile link back into yet another website.
And they are for the well-defined accounting periods, e.g. monthly or quarterly, not some sort of ephemeral "rollup to time of download". That would drive me mad if they had different periods depending on download timing.
I can't know for certain, but my gut tells me they are just generating PDFs at the same time they perform the general reporting run that also leads to printed statements. And then they have some limited retention history to limit the storage costs.