No, it’s because Kirk respected Scotty and gave him leeway.
Picard is the meathead, if anyone, and actually watching all the episodes in detail and figuring out their characters you’ll realise that Kirk is twice the scholar and then some Picard pretended to be, especially accounting for the movies and later series. Kelvin timeline doesn’t count, of course.
I’m also confused because based on that screenshot, the page has HTTPS, which would mean either the block would be client-side, or the entire domain is blocked.
Wikipedia says "The National Intelligence Law of the People's Republic of China theoretically allows the Chinese government to request and use the root certificate from any Chinese certificate authority,[60] such as CNNIC, to make MITM attacks with valid certificates." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall#Active_filterin...]
Keyword is "theoretically". Thanks to certificate transparency, such misissuances would be detected relatively quickly, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42284202. To my knowledge it hasn't actually happened in practice.
This is the real question. One that I would love to know the answer to.
If it's a Chinese run spider that flags websites that contain banned terms, does this mean that we can effectively block certain websites from China as a form of denial attack?
There are many sites which allow user submissions without a strong administrative overview. E.g. Could Booking.com be blocked to the Chinese audience by a listing including certain keywords on their page or in imagery.
> ...does this mean that we can effectively block certain websites from China as a form of denial attack?
I believe this is known. I have a file saved somewhere with a list of terms that allegedly trigger Chinese blocking.
I won't post it here :) It's pretty useless, in a practical sense. If I say anything the Chinese government wants to block, I'd rather their citizens see it.
>If it's a Chinese run spider that flags websites that contain banned terms, does this mean that we can effectively block certain websites from China as a form of denial attack?
Yes? That's basically why a bunch of western social media sites are banned in china, because people post subversive content there and the site's administration refuses the government's request to take it down. If you tried it on booking.com or whatever, it won't work, both because your comments will be taken down by site administration for being off topic, but also because the site is big enough that they won't take automated actions (hopefully). At best you can take down small to medium sites that don't have active moderation teams. Moreover, this isn't an attack that's limited to china, it can be used against any sort of content blocking system. Sites have been blocked from google browsers (via google safe browsing) due to malicious UGC, and you can even take down the whole site if you email the abuse department of their hosting provider.
I have deep experience with black listing on the net, and nothing compares to the Chinese censor machine. A comparison with mundane things like malware is dishonest. You should not attribute the great firewall to anything else than the malice it is.
>I have deep experience with black listing on the net, and nothing compares to the Chinese censor machine. A comparison with mundane things like malware is dishonest
The comparison was with how both the chinese censorship system and other blocking systems can be susceptible to the same attack (ie. people posting UGC to get a site banned). At no point did I imply that they were comparable in any other way.
I believe that it only tries to DWIM with arithmetic and geometric sequences, and gives up otherwise. Of course there’s nothing keeping you from writing a module that would override infix:... in the local scope with a lookup in OEIS.
You get either a compile time instantiated infinite lazy sequence, or a compilation error.
My personal bar for "amount of clever involved" is fairly high when the clever either does exactly what you'd expect or fails, and even higher when it does so at compile time.
(personal bars, and personal definitions of "exactly what you'd expect" will of course vary, but I think your brain may have miscalibrated the level of risk before it got as far as applying your preferences in this particular case)
Programming is not just a matter of slinging syntax at a problem. Good programmers need to develop a mental model of how a language works.
Needing to do geometric sequences as syntax like that is clearly a parlor trick, a marginal use case. What goes through a good programmer's mind, with experience of getting burned by such things over the years, is "If Raku implements this parlor trick, what other ones does it implement? What other numbers will do something I didn't expect when I put them in? What other patterns will it implement?"
Yes, you can read the docs, and learn, but we also know this interacts with all sorts of things. I'm not telling you why you should be horrified, I'm explaining why on first glance this is something that looks actually quite unappealing and scary to a certain set of programmers.
It actually isn't my opinion either. My opinion isn't so much that this is scary on its own terms, but just demonstrates it is not a language inline with any of my philosophies.
It's a parlor trick because something like "1, * × 2 ..." is much more sensible. Heck, it isn't even longer, if we're talking about saving keystrokes. It's still more syntax than I'm looking for from a language, but "initial, update rule, continue infinitely" does not give me that immediate "oh wtf, what other magic is going to happen with other values?" reaction I describe from trying to divine update rules from raw numbers.
It is also immediately obvious how to use this for other patterns, immediately obvious how to compose it, and just generally experiences all the benefits things get from not being special cases.
Brisbane had trials for a Cubic system in 2006 with a full rollout by 2008. It went, broadly speaking, OK. The machines at stations were a near unusable mess and the locations you could buy the cards from were ridiculously limited.
They were in the PowerPC consortium starting in 1991, co-developed ARM6 starting in the late 80s and the M series chips are part of the Apple Silicon family that goes back to at least 2010's Apple A4 (with non-Apple branded chips before then).
They've been in the chip designing business for a while.
Actually difficult to know if it was Keller. Apple bought PA Semi which is where he came from. But he came on as a VP after it was founded by other engineers who had worked on the Alpha chips a year before that. Did he make the difference? Who knows.
What does seem to be constant is that the best CPU designs have been touched by the hands of people who can trace their roots to North Eastern US. Maybe the correlation doesn't exist and the industry is small and incestuous enough that most designs are worked on by people from everywhere, but sometimes it seems like some group at DEC or Multiflow stumbled on the holy grail of CPU design and all took a drink from the cup.
Apparently Xerox, out of all companies in the world, is in the small list of even bigger employers than Lexmark there.
reply