That's the thing though. You can get all the value from LWN through here. Even if it wasn't for them tolerating subscriber links being posted on HN, the week-long delay isn't nearly enough an incentive to actually subscribe, rationally speaking.
Rationally-speaking, maybe not. I’ve been a long-time subscriber. When I first subscribed, my day-to-day involved embedded Linux and getting the “breaking news” was pretty valuable. These days I still do that somewhat but I’m stuck on a crusty vendor kernel and anything I read about a kernel newer than 5.15 is going to land on my desk in approximately 2028… but I still subscribe, mostly with a patronage mindset: I don’t acutely get value from the subscription every week, but I think it’s a community service and I’m happy to pitch in a few bucks to keep it alive.
Same as me. I started subscribing LWN when I was a Linux enthusiast from my early college days, because the content was so good and interesting. Nowadays I barely read it but I still keep my subscription alive, just because I think the content is worth it.
not saying parent feels this way but the target class of this website often does not separate the two. we're still sloughing off the goofballery of objectivism, i guess.
Agree. I don't read it every week, but I greatly appreciate the quality (both of the technical content and the lack of advertising/sensationalism/clickbait) when I do read an article. Happy to pay to support this style of tech reporting and journalism.
This is pretty close to "I shall stand under this tree during the storm to stay dry, and if this tree starts to drip on me I'll just run over to that other tree and stay dry there" thinking. If LWN goes away, that value leaves HN too. Rationally speaking.
You’d think, but in practice their entire policy prescription seems to come down to “well if they didn’t want me to have it, they should’ve bolted it down, this is really an incentives problem, if you look at it.”
> Remember that since 1989, no actions were taken to improve its security.
Technically, gets() was removed from the standard library in C11[0]. However, that is far from a semantically meaningful overhaul of the standard library. I nonetheless felt the need to point out that there was a very specific effort for the sake of completeness.
Which is great, except for all those stubborn folks not using anything beyond C99, and scanf and fgets are still possible attack vectors, when getting sizes wrong.
Footnote to QLDB: AWS has deprecated QLDB[1]. They actually recommend using Postgres with pgAudit and a bunch of complexity around it[2]. I'm not sure how I feel about such a misunderstanding of one's own offerings of this level.
Yeah. I'm surprised it didn't get enough uptake to succeed, especially among the regulated/auditable crowds, considering all the purpose built tech put into it.
Thank you for the article. I was not aware of that article. My first implementation was done in 1997 or 1998. I am involve in computer security for three decades and I was familiar with Feistel networks. I am not a cryptographer but I have reverse engineered algorithms using this structure. Never checked patents because I think this is a natural construction and I always wondered why there were no other public ideas around this problem. This is not the first time it happened to me.
It is not required to pay bills by scanning the QR code. It is perfectly possible to enter the IBAN and reference number manually as long as your banking provider lets you do so.
What is required is that you, when creating an invoice, provide the QR code for doing so.
I’m not sure were I said that it was required? I was responding to the comment. I see a huge benefit from scanning the QR code as it saves me trouble having to manually enter all the info. Older barcode style bills also worked but somehow scanning was always wonky.
I've been through this ordeal recently, but I'm probably missing something anyway.
You need to have a compatible CPU/motherboard/chipset. For normal CPUs: AMD Ryzen non-Pro APUs don't have support for it, the rest of AMD's CPUs and chipsets have unofficial support for it. You'll have to check the motherboard vendor's support page if a certain board also has support for ECC. Then you need ECC memory modules and you should stick near the qualified vendors list (QVL) here since systems are kind of pickier with ECC memory. For Intel, you're out of luck except for the W680 chipset, but motherboards seem to be scarce.
For high-end desktop (HEDT) and workstations CPUs: AMD's Threadripper lineup have official ECC support, but still check with the motherboard vendor first. For Intel, most Xeons should do it, but check before you buy. The same caveat about motherboards applies here, too: Check if there's ECC support first and stick to the QVL to be safe.
reply