The article mentions an `append` operation which is obviously not commutative; does that imply memcached needs a separate "appendable" string type? Of course not. Memcached only guarantees that the individual operations are atomic, it's the client's responsibility to avoid race conditions between multiple operations.
Yes, bytes from a *logical* stream need to be delivered in order. But in HTTP2 (3) multiple logical streams are multiplexed on top of one physical TCP (QUIC) connection. In the HTTP2 case this means that a dropped segment from logical stream A will block delivery of subsequent segments from an different logical stream B (which is bad for obvious reasons). QUIC doesn't have this problem, which is a large part of its value proposition.
> The point is that in some cases the name of the project might itself be considered sensitive in some way
probably better to solve that problem by just giving projects easy-to-remember codenames. that's what intelligence agencies and militaries have been doing for years after all
I agree. Actually everyone I don't like should be classified as a terrorist and denied any sort of due process or civil rights. It's fine as long as we only do it to really really bad people who make us very very mad.
it's irrelevant whether they're "cryptographically" random, all that matters is that account IDs are not controlled by the user and therefore have no logical relation to any access-control policies the user may wish to implement
Yes we all know it's possible to lie with statistics. What are your criticisms of this article in particular? If you don't have any then you're just baselessly casting aspersions.
No? You don't need parallelism to guarantee global progress as long as the scheduler has the ability to preempt tasks. Of course coroutines (as opposed to e.g. userspace threads) can't really be preempted, which is the issue here.
> These are where the news site makes their content available to scrapers and then paywalls humans. This is where the news site is trying take advantage of search engines to get you to clink on their SERP, and then make you pay. In a lot of cases you can read this content by proxying off a non-dynamic ip range and changing your user agent.
okay... so they're piracy links is what you're saying?
I agree, it's so weird that people who devote time, effort, and resources to the production of articles or books somehow think they're entitled to be compensated for the use of those products! What a bizarre belief! I mean, obviously they should just give them away for free. Not like they need money to survive or anything. They can just go on food stamps and live under a bridge or something.
Not to mention the absurd fact that accessing (IPv4) AWS APIs from a private subnet requires paying for either a NAT gateway or an interface endpoint (we got bitten by sending a ton of Kinesis traffic through a NAT gateway once)
They didn't, though, they made it available to be looked at alongside advertisements.
HN users just love twisting themselves in circles to justify their belief that they're somehow entitled to consume content from private websites without consuming the ads that support that content. (If you don't want to see ads, there's a really simple solution: don't look at websites that display them! No one's forcing you to!)
Really? You can't think of a single way for multiple clients to operate on the same data without racing? (Here's a hint if you're still having trouble: https://github.com/memcached/memcached/wiki/Commands#cas.)