decisiveness

7 年前議論

And each time this happens, you get better about writing readable comments up front describing edge cases and difficulties so that future self can avoid steps 1 - 6 with a head start on refactor ideas / feasibility.

decisiveness

8 年前議論

> Perhaps a site that's been around for over a decade and already has mass brand recognition might not get as many people googling it bare, since most people can just... go there directly.

It seems to me that googling for a popular site like reddit is actually pretty common. A couple of reasons:

1. Because google is often much better at returning relevant results for site:<site>.com <query> than searching for <query> in the site's search engine. I would think this to be the case even more so for types of sites like reddit simply because of such high total post / word count. In fact, brand recognition would seem to be more of a reason for people to google it. E.g. If you want to read a wikipedia article on some topic, you normally wouldn't visit wikipedia.org first to use its search, you'd google "wikipedia <topic>" or "site:wikipedia.org <topic>".

2. To avoid hitting enter after a typo and ending up on some malware site <domain with typo>.com.

decisiveness

8 年前議論

My guess is that most companies decide to cut the cost of maintaining responsive web apps since they are already paying developers to maintain native mobile and desktop web. Because, in their minds "who wouldn't just use the app"?

To get around it, there are a few lesser known mobile browsers that allow you to modify the "User-Agent" header, in which case you can bypass by masking yourself as viewing on a desktop browser. Sleipnir is one.

decisiveness

8 年前議論

>they can’t query anything on a specific user.

What exactly do you mean by "user"? Can they query DNS traffic by IP address / subnet? Exactly what are all of the restrictions there?

EDIT: Is there a whitelist of things they can query by or do you simply trust them to be good citizens, have a binding legal agreement, all of the above?

decisiveness

8 年前議論

>APNIC gets to see the noise as well as the DNS traffic

>Huston emphasised that APNIC intends to protect users' privacy. "DNS is remarkably informative about what users do, if you inspect it closely, and none of us are interested in doing that," he said.

Maybe it is reasonable to take them at their word as they seem trustworthy, but we should at least consider the fact that at least some of this DNS traffic is indeed being analyzed.

decisiveness

9 年前議論

I don't think knowing exactly what parent comment is talking about is required to see that they weren't suggesting we should do away with all visualizations just because there are some cases where they might not be the best tool for teaching.

decisiveness

9 年前議論

I'm not sure what posting this accomplishes, but it certainly was not intended to shame the developers, though I can see how it might be perceived that way. I am more than satisfied and thankful for everything else that Mozilla provides me in Firefox (especially after the 57 update).

It was, more than anything, intended to offer a noticeable bump in hopes that I don't have to continue wasting 5 seconds finding and closing the window every time I open Firefox (as I have had to do since using this feature over the last hand full of years). I've probably spent (roughly) 2 hours of my life closing these duplicate prompts over time.

It's an annoying user experience that seems fixable which is why I'm surprised it still remains at "normal" priority. I would spend the time to read every comment, read through and understand the architecture of this legacy code, fix the bug and submit a patch only to have it code reviewed and have me resubmit or be forced to resign my attempt because political reasons or some other factor, but that would probably take me more than 2 hours so I refrain and hope that it gets fixed in the next 7 years.

Not intending to be snide, just a moderately inconvenienced user trying to stir action.

decisiveness

9 年前議論

What many seem to have missed from this is the bit at the end where Fowler concedes:

> I don't feel I have enough anecdotes yet to get a firm handle on how to decide whether to use a monolith-first strategy.

after linking and mentioning points of a guest post [1] (with which I strongly agree) which argues against starting with a monolith. A key part from that post:

> Microservices’ main benefit, in my view, is enabling parallel development by establishing a hard-to-cross boundary between different parts of your system. By doing this, you make it hard – or at least harder – to do the wrong thing: Namely, connecting parts that shouldn’t be connected, and coupling those that need to be connected too tightly. In theory, you don’t need microservices for this if you simply have the discipline to follow clear rules and establish clear boundaries within your monolithic application; in practice, I’ve found this to be the case only very rarely.

[1] https://martinfowler.com/articles/dont-start-monolith.html

decisiveness

9 年前議論

To quote the Intel Developer Instructions[1] on the HTT flag:

>A value of 0 for HTT indicates there is only a single logical processor in the package and software should assume only a single APIC ID is reserved. A value of 1 for HTT indicates the value in CPUID.1.EBX[23:16] (the Maximum number of addressable IDs for logical processors in this package) is valid for the package.

UPDATE: It appears these flags refer to each initial APIC ID, so it seems the HTT flag value should be 0 in all cases where the overall processor:thread ratio is 1, suggesting there might either be incorrect information in the CPUID instruction for some Intel CPUs or the kernel is not correctly evaluating CPUID.1.EBX[23:16].

Hopefully, someone more versed in CPUs can correct me here.

[1]https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

decisiveness

9 年前議論

It looks like dmidecode also contradicts itself with the hyper threading flag:

    $ sudo dmidecode -t processor | grep -E 'Flags:|HTT|Status|Count'
    	Flags:
		HTT (Multi-threading)
	Status: Populated, Enabled
	Core Count: 4
	Thread Count: 4

decisiveness

9 年前議論

>Rule of thumb: On a desktop, if you have an i5 you do not have Hyperthreading. All i3s and i7s do have Hyperthreading, as do new Kaby Lake Pentiums (G4560, 4600, 4620).

Hmm...either this statement is wrong or this desktop /proc/cpinfo is wrong:

    $ grep -E 'model|stepping|cpu cores' /proc/cpuinfo | sort -u
    cpu cores	    : 4
    model           : 94
    model name	    : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6600 CPU @ 3.30GHz
    stepping	    : 3
    $ grep -q '^flags.*[[:space:]]ht[[:space:]]' /proc/cpuinfo && echo "Hyper-threading is supported"
    Hyper-threading is supported

Intel's product spec page[1] lists this CPU as not supporting Hyper-Threading so I'm a bit puzzled as to why the ht flag is present.

[1]https://ark.intel.com/products/88188/Intel-Core-i5-6600-Proc...

decisiveness

9 年前議論

Never rely on your ISP to provide great wifi equipment. This is not something specific to Comcast. Generally, it seems residential ISPs are only on the hook for providing quoted speeds via a wired connection to their gateway.

This is why I always either disable the wifi from my ISP's modem/router combo and branch off my own wifi router from the modem's LAN or request a modem only device from the ISP and use my wifi router's LAN. The downside to the former case is that your wifi devices are now double NATed (unless you use a wireless bridge) which can be annoying if you want to forward ports (you now have to do it twice). The modem/router combo might not support disabling its LAN to act as a bridge very well.

decisiveness

9 年前議論

Truth or not, I'm curious to know how the high probability that all content is curated doesn't bother you?

I can't find one leak that's been damaging to Putin's agenda. That doesn't prove Russia is in control of the site, but it's curious that every single leak has been either damaging to the United States, other parties that have not had good relations with Russia or relatively inconsequential to either.

The fact that Assange cannot verify he produces the content of his site only furthers the probability of Russia having seized possession of it, given there exists no damaging information to Putin's regime. Would it not be better if those leaks were exposed along with everything else?

decisiveness

投稿

An AWK to C++ Translator (1991) [pdf]

Firefox Master Password Duplicate Prompt Bug Unfixed for 15 Years

コメント