shabble

what value do you get from keeping them for years? Are you actively analysing and re-analysing them for any particular purpose, or is it more of a 'well, you never know...' sort of deal?

"they change often" is arguably a good reason for not keeping them. What advantage do you get from knowing that 10 years ago $IP was sending you spam if it's been though 20 different re-allocations and tens of thousands of 'actual owners' since then?

Imagine if google or cloudflare were logging every since query to their public DNS and correlating it with other access logs or google analytics or whatever. They'd be able to relatively trivially deanonymise huge numbers of actual people's identities and browsing history (beyond what they can obtain already).

> How long is necessary?

As long as is needed for the stated purpose. If you're doing IP-based rate limiting with a 1 hour window, it probably doesn't need to still be in your systems >12 hours from now. If you're doing longer term IP reputation or something, keeping it around longer can probably be justified.

> What does limited mean?

The same. Long enough to serve its purpose, and no longer (without justifiable exception, such as being evidence of an actual crime, etc)

> Does a regulator now get to determine what sort of algorithms I can use

Not really, any more than they already do.

"Not guilty, Your Honour; you see, we do store people's HIV status against their real names on the public blockchain, but don't worry, it's ROT-13 encrypted! Twice!"

Also, remember that it's not really the IP that you care about (from a privacy perspective). An IP+timestamp is a very discerning selector, if you have any other data at all.

Nobody knows that '192.168.1.1' is actually me. And even if they did, does it really matter?

But maybe they know that only $IP hit /orders/confirm within 5 minutes of some other system recording that $ME placed an order with other details.

From a privacy standpoint, it's your ability to cross-correlate that IP and whatever else you know about it that could allow identifying and tracking/profiling the actual person using it.

Suppose your marketing dept asked you to scan the last few weeks of security logs to see if you'd had any hits from ranges belonging to $BIGCORP who you're in tense negotiations with? Is that Ok? Or would you refuse because the security logs are collected exclusively for certain purposes of which that isn't?

> People are rightfully worried about "you followed the law completely but we don't like it so massive fines!"

That seems largely independent of how precise/vague the laws are, if you're expecting the enforcing party to find a way to get you regardless.

The 'defence' here seems to be that you can make a decent argument that you've taken appropriate measures to conform with your [reasonable] interpretation of the rules.

The regulator can object (and possibly penalise you) if they think you're not acting in good faith, or you have a grossly unreasonable interpretation of those rules. You can object to an unfair interpretation of the rules by the regulator as well.

Either way, if The Powers That Be want you nailed to a wall, they'll find a way, this particular regulation or not.

that doesn't match the indentation on the subsequent line though, does it?

> Unlike AdNauseam, Google can't do much to get in the way of Pi-Hole. This isn't within its ecosystem

Is there any reason they couldn't start ignoring system DNS resolvers for "key properties" in favour of using DNS over HTTPS to themselves "for your comfort and safety"? And use pinned keys for those DoH resolvers to stop you MitMing it.

You could maybe still transparently proxy things or firewall specific hosts, but that's a lot less straightforward and higher risk of collateral blockage.

Neat, I've never seen the link support from there before.

And yes, I wasn't arguing in favour of using a full HTML DOM, but that potentially some simplicity-favouring middle-ground might allow new and interesting features. As you've just demonstrated :P

There are still desirable features that modern terminals struggle with, or provide in an inconsistent way because they all implement it with slightly different hacks.

Some sort of common semantic markup/annotation would be useful to allow terminals to offer intelligent click/hover/select actions on urls, file/pathnames, etc, etc.

This can be done with regex or deeper parsers in the terminal program, but that's slow & fragile. If the outputting program has a way of generating '<a href=...>yourlink</a>' the term can just interpret those and save a lot of trouble.

It means you need a) a common markup standard, b) support from enough terminals, c) support from enough output-producing programs to make it all worthwhile.

You'd probably also want any such markup to be backwards compatible so it didn't horribly mangle content on unsupported terms, unless you could sneak it in through feature detection in termcap/terminfo.

Also, I'm not sure 'rendering via a DOM' is the real point of contention here. My understanding is that there's already a DOM of sorts in most terminals, being used to represent the current window in terms of lines, rows, character cells, etc.

Those cells hold attributes for text colour, formatting, and content, etc.

I don't think it would be entirely impossible/impractical to come up with an enhanced representation along those lines that allowed supporting producers/consumers to do more better things.

A fully-fledged HTML DOM and the bulk of a browser engine required to actually render it is where I think the complication and performance comes in. Not to mention a loss of some of the relative simplicity of display generation that a fixed-size character grid affords producers.

Isn't the legal system 'artificial' by that sort of definition? Should people feel obliged to follow those artificial rules?[1]

Also, dismissing a system with a simple "Well, I don't watch it / it doesn't affect me" is a pretty weak argument compared actually addressing how dishonesty & cheating affects those who do participate. (And whether you personally engage or not, I'm sure sport, like education, does somehow impact your life in some way.)

> I resent the fact that I had to spend so much time [...] learning so much theory that I never use in the real world.

Like what? Are you certain you have never and will never use it? Is it equally worthless to everyone, or is there some benefit to some of the people that happen to not be you?

Was it completely unavoidable? Did you investigate your curricula before enrolling, and choose only things directly related to your present career?

I agree that the current qualifications system is broken, IMO having a lot to do with (especially in the UK) pitching university as an essential part of education, and destroying/replacing the whole technical college system in its favour.

I can't accept that the best way to fix it is to make everything worse for everyone until it finally collapses though.

> Nice straw man bro

If we accept that I'm a dishonest person attempting to bypass the 'has good university credentials' check, why wouldn't you expect me to also cheat at building a portfolio, and maybe practising my interview-bullshit techniques in order to best land a job?

I can't imagine any system that has to assume maximum dishonesty could ever be more efficient than one where you can actually trust the information given to you.

Granted, it's a spectrum, but you're seemingly arguing in favour of some sort of 'distrust, then verify, then verify some more' approach, which seems weird.

[1] There are plenty of good arguments for and against, this isn't just a trick question.

> Cheating is only an issue in the artificial world of academia, where it goes against how the system is supposed to work.

What about other artificial systems with defined rules, like sports? Is doping or other cheating permissible? If so, at all levels, or only professional levels?

> * Academic grades and degrees, to the extent that they affect your life after academia, should be based on what you can accomplish or explain, not how well you can write answers.*

In large part, the current forms of evaluation (closed book, silent, proctored exams) are a result of people cheating in honour-based systems. As cheating continues to be a problem, pressure is increased on institutions and staff to prevent it, which ultimately leads to a worse learning environment for everyone.

Edit: I should point out this isn't a theoretical concern. I personally resent the people who have attempted to 'beat the system' with simple dishonesty and caused me to have to endure uncomfortable and tedious attempts to minimise cheating during my education.

In a similar vein, I feel it was a lot better for just about everyone back when you could take more than a thimbleful of liquid onto an aeroplane.

> Employers should be using other methods to screen prospective employees -- looking at past projects [...]

So having cheated my way through schooling, I should probably drop a few more bucks into getting some jobs-board contractors to knock out a couple of 'passion projects' to throw onto github?

Would you want to be that surgeon's first patient?

Techmeetup[1] is probably a good place to get started.

[1] http://techmeetup.co.uk/

I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100.

It's bcrypt hash is: '$2b$15$qUxzZ5ZF55lMuqiH9GMjQOHkNyee86qd2Vh2kQyF5P3U6JZJx9AEC'

I bet nobody could ever reverse this secure cryptographic hash to figure out what it could be... ;)

As long as it's covered, I'd hope everyone is bringing them in for servicing and repair as often as necessary, since that seems like the only way they'll take any action, if it costs them enough in support and refurb costs.

Public outcry is nice, but unless it's actually stopping people buying them, I'm not sure it helps.

If you plan to use capslock for anything else (some people do actually use it as caps-lock, and I have gotten used to it as an alternate Ctrl for Emacs use) it's definitely more of a pain.

I've yet to encounter a single good use for the touchbar, even the volume control is annoying to use. Especially since it's essentially impossible to hit without looking since there's no 'key feel', and I keep finding myself triggering touchbar actions because my fingers slightly overshoot the number or backspace key on occasion.

It'd be great as an optional addition above the F-keys, or even a little further away since it requires a concerted effort to use anyway.

Even the fact that the pretend 'escape' key doesn't properly operate all the way to the end of the bar (such that it might align with the keys below it) suggests it was far more about aesthetics or some weird notion of 'design' than actual usability.

Or I'm just not the right sort of Pro.

Did you clean them out yourself? There's very little room to use any sort of tool to clean under the keys without removing the caps, and from what I understand pulling the caps is a fairly risky procedure no matter how delicate.

You can get some way with canned air and something like a sheet of heavy paper to slip under the cap, but it's by no means infallible.

My intended solution is to take it periodically to the Apple store and request htey clean it out, since they have replacement caps and presumably the service manual on how to remove them properly. If enough people waste enough of their time and money, it might encourage them towards less hostile designs in future.

If it's just a keycap (and maybe even the butterfly mechanism) that shouldn't be too bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KuVvb9DTaU (from about 5:20) talks a bit about what's involved in an actual keyboard replacement, if you ignore some of the histrionics.

I think from what I've heard that for actual replacements, Apple will swap out the whole 'top case' subassembly, which could be a 4-500$ part if it's not covered under warranty.

All of my support/repair experiences to date have been pretty underwhelming at best.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but are the options for small business support for Apple machines that don't involve either 8-10 days without a machine, or wasting time going to/waiting/from an apple store.

The contrast between business support for say, Dell, is staggering.

I'm getting an annoying amount of spurious clicks even using press-to-click. I dread to think what tap would be like.

Equally annoying is when the palm rejection kicks in because I'm trying to press too close to an edge or something, and the lack of tactile feedback makes it feel like i just stubbed my finger.

TinyFugue (http://tinyfugue.sourceforge.net/) was for a long time the terminal client of choice.

I used to use zMUD (http://www.zuggsoft.com/page.php?file=zmud/zmudinfo.htm), but looks like it maybe never made it past Windows XP.

Make sure you login every couple of years or so. I just had a quick look and two of my three accounts have expired and been purged.

Some of the simpler muds worked quite well with the zMUD automapper[1] which would try to parse the room descriptions and build/navigate the map.

I remember trying to get it working for Discworld, but the richness of the world descriptions (which varied depending on weather, light level, and all sorts of other factors), along with spontaneous info messages, made it very hard to extract reliably.

My complete lack of knowledge about parsing & text processing probably didn't help matters, and I learned a lot building triggers and other (mostly tolerated) automation back in the day.

One particular feature/challenge I remember was the UU library, which in order to navigate around, switched from cardinal directions (go east; go west; ...) to relative (turn left; forward; forward; turn right), so you had to keep track of your rotation. Combined with deviously constructed routes, it didn't take much to get hopelessly lost, which as the entire point I think :)

A lot of that subtlety would be lost in a simple tiled map, as would all the (often extremely verbose and entertaining) world descriptions.

Add that to the fact that almost all were player/volunteer-built worlds, and graphical art is a much harder field to dabble in than text, probably explains why graphics-first waited until commercial developments like EQ.

[1] http://www.oocities.org/timessquare/dungeon/6091/automap1.gi...

I think https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1217 might be more appropriate, and even touches on the relevant topic in section 5(e).

But is the venom also poisonous?

I think the equivalent jq query would be something like:

    [.locations[] | select(.state == "WA").name] | sort | join(", ") | { WashingtonCities: . }

On OSX I have a tiny applescript running inside Butler[1] that's active when firefox is foregrounded, and just intercepts Ctrl-Q and runs:

    tell application "Firefox"
	    set buttonStr to "Ooops"
	    set errMsg to "Close with ?-Q disabled. Use the menu."
	    display dialog errMsg buttons {buttonStr} cancel button buttonStr default button buttonStr with icon stop giving up after 5
    end tell

I'd imagine similar options exist for other OSes. AutoHotkey for windows, maybe? Not sure what linux/x has by way of systemwide handlers that can both intercept and cancel propagation of offending bindings, though.

[1] https://manytricks.com/butler/

maybe something more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_cryptanalysis ?

I suppose it could be capturing EM emissions from the printers rather than acoustic, but that would make it fundamentally more like the other TEMPEST hacks as a way to exploit unintentional emissions, rather than as a sneaky covert channel where you have control over the computer equipment, but don't have access to external interfaces to offload your stolen data.

Unless I'm misunderstanding some part of your description, anyway.

it's not 100% equivalent, for example C-v (select visual block), I, ..., C-c will cancel the block prepend action, whereas esc or C-[ will execute it.

Took me a while to realise that when messing around with visual/block.

I still mostly use C-c from muscle memory though, but do occasionally swear at it.

we need a 'secure escape' sequence that disables all subsequent escapes until rescinded!

And it can change the background colour of the affected lines to a shade unrepresentable by unprivileged sequences.

Mostly tongue-in-cheek, but... one of these years I'm going to track down what the heck the 'PRIVACY MESSAGE' sequence is actually for. ECMA48 is infuriatingly vague, and nothing seems to actually use or support it.

its quite a lot older than that! http://xml.coverpages.org/linuxml-19990226.html is the first one I've heard of, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are predecessors decades older still.

The problem largely still is the effort of rewriting all/enough userspace tools to actually use the type system to make it worthwhile, or the even less appealing approach of maintaining parsers/shims/wrappers for things that allow it to work.

no, I'm just going from a fairly hazy memory of some article, so it may not be the case at all.

Could also have been something contractual with the payment processors relating to fraud detection or prohibited item/services, but it seemed like it might threaten their current payment setup.

I'll see if I can find anything, but something in the firefox 56-57->52 ESR downgrade appears to have eaten all of my profile's History, and I'm not sure I can be bothered rummaging through external backups :)