Well if it’s for learning, you can rent vms from hosting providers. That’s a fairly inexpensive way to learn about BGP with a global “toy” CDN.
I have a small ipv6 subnet I purchased for just this purpose. It was interesting setting everything up in multiple locations and seeing traffic routing around as I turned machines on and off.
I also set up my machines as a reverse proxy of a sort, a small fake CDN, and experimented with caching at different locations and moving content around.
I would have gotten a bit more serious about it, but I’m still on the waiting list for an ipv4 subnet after 2 years. And pretty sure it would be too expensive now. Would have to check though.
> That's literally the explanation for PowerShell. Many of us wanted to improve cmd.exe, but couldn't.
I stopped reading here. (Not really, I read the rest, but I could have.)
Powershell is a fundamentally new thing that's miles ahead of its competitors. They couldn't have gotten there by just improving cmd incrementally. If the authors confuses boldness with being carefree about maintenance, that's on them.
I'm not a user or fan of powershell, but let me tell you something funny...
The creator of Powershell did it as a side project at Microsoft and got DEMOTED for doing it.
That's about all you need to know about the culture of Microsoft in the Steve Ballmer years.
OP claimed that pwsh was started because it was new and shiny and would lead to a quicker promotion than working on cmd. Turns out that the guy who created pwsh didn't get promoted, but actually demoted. If you can't understand that demotion is the opposite of promotion, well...
Until I started working at a SaaS company shipping to Windows enterprise customers I thought PowerShell wasn't used by anyone. Now I see it all the time. It's not fantastic, but if you're in the Windows world it beats writing CMD scripts.
As an end user though I imagine most people use bash or some other unix-world shell, especially post WSL. The "Git Bash" distribution is surprisingly useful as an everyday Windows shell.
You can install any scripting language, you can use Python or Lua for instance. PowerShell has a good integration with the OS, however and you don't need to install other tools if you want to download something or make a web request, for example.
Some organization's policies prohibits the installation other interpreters. Not because they're different interpreters; the policy is only the bare absolute minimum for that specific server to accomplish that role gets installed. Reasoning being that the more software you stuff into any server, the more chances that something that isn't supposed to be there has to get into the software supply chain.
So if Powershell (which is inbuilt in Windows) can do everything that python does, even if it's harder and clunkier to work with, guess what you're stuck with.
But does it beat curl? The main sellong point of bash is git and curl nowdays. Developer tools can craft curl invocations for web requests. Can they do powershell snippets?
UPD: I've just checked it and yes - Chromium developer tools can produce PowerShell snippets. Good.
Step 1. Go to google news or whatever news aggregation website you want.
Step 2. Search for "transgender attack".
Step 3. Take some time to digest the horrible news you're reading.
Step 4. Try to figure out the common thread between these stories. The people in question usually get outed in public during some kind of ID check, and got jumped by some intolerant moron who witnessed it.
This is happening. Today. Including in "North America and Europe". The people who say they feel unsafe because they feel unsafe for their physical integrity and safety. Not because of "awkwardness or very minor psychological discomfort".
in that case it's an argument for getting the name change done properly right from the start, right? i don't think having a different name on your mastercard is a solution here (especially since choosing "mx" as a prefix is hardly keeping things secret..)
There’s nothing MasterCard can do to help you change your name. This is something they can do. Plus, it makes MasterCard more appealing to this market. I think it was a great move.
You should read more carefully. GP wrote "minor psychological discomfort". They're definitely trying to downplay the danger that transgender people sometimes get put in.
Not parent, but I agree with the general point. Leaving this specific example aside which is a real world interaction, we (America) have gone to far to redefine what "safety" is. Ben Shapiro speaking at your school is not "putting you in danger".
How would this help that hypothetical person in any way? If the coins are stolen, then the victim will want the money back. They won't care if the "same" coins are given back or not. Money is fungible. If someone steals a $10 bill from you and burns it, are you going to forsake your claim to $10? I bet you'd even be happy to get two $5 bills back rather than nothing.
It proves that you destroyed X coins.
Example, with the Bitfinex hack, about 120k Bitcoins were stolen, but they were blacklisted and unspendable even on the darknet. So the hypothetical hacker could try to negotiate returning x percent of the coins if he is let go with the rest. Burning coins could prove that he means business, and that he could just burn the entire 120k Bitcoins.
There must be something going on behind the scenes.
I'm trying to see a way for burning the coins to be useful in some way, but I'm not yet seeing it in your scenario. If it were the case that there had been a theft, and the thief wanted to be able to spend a fraction of what they stole (instead of get it all blacklisted), wouldn't the deal involve sending the remaining fraction back to the original owners? If you steal something from me, I'm interested in getting (at least some fraction of) that thing back, not in you provably destroying some fraction of it.
It is pretty much a prisoners dilemma. If the coins are blacklisted, then both the Hacker and the victim are in a lose situation and it is a stalemate.
Now let's imagine the victim tells the hacker they are not willing to negotiate and hope that law enforcement will catch the hackers like they did in the Bitfinex case. The hacker could destroy some coins every X days to make it clear to the victim that this is not a good idea.
This is just a wild scenario. But had I been the Bitfinex hacker I would have done crazy things such as sending blacklisted coins in small amounts to many random addresses, those of exchanges, developers, non-profits, Satoshi Nakamoto etc.. Just to create chaos as it would have caused those people a lot of trouble and would have forced some kind of resolution.
FWIW, bitfinex was willing to buy the coins back on what they claimed was a no-fault basis and even put a significant amount of coins into third party escrow for that purpose.
Back in the early days of Bitcoin... Zhou-tong, after robbing his own business (Bitcoinica) blind, did something kind of like what you were suggesting -- raining down coins on random people and creating general chaos. I think it was more mania and panic rather than a well considered strategy.
I think in general you don't see stuff like that through a mix of (1) it's less easy than you think, and (2) thoughtful people don't become serious thieves in the first place, it's not worth it.
For this analogy to fit, the bank robbers would have to destroy (some of) the notes/coins/gold bars (that is, the stuff both parties care about), not execute people (whom the robbers don't care about but the other side do). Which would convince the other side not that the robbers are serious, but that they're idiots.
Well, if you don't have hostages, demonstrating that you're capable of destroying the entire bank vault if they don't let you walk out with half makes sense
For regular money, "the same coins" isn't usually meaningful. For bitcoin, it is perfectly possible to say yes, this is the same money, and those other coins in the same wallet are not the same.
Since we can track bitcoin perfectly, it's hard to argue people who have the exact stolen item shouldn't be required to return it.
Fungibility is just a social convention. Anything we can tell apart we can decide to treat non-fungibly, and we can tell bitcoin apart.
I specifically took the example of a (physical) $10 bill. You can definitely tell apart two different $10 bills. They have serial numbers, for example. They're different physical objects.
Sure. I said we can decide to treat things we can tell apart as non-fungible. I didn't say we had to.
If it's things we can't tell apart (say, liters of oil in the same tank), we are pretty much forced to treat them fungibly. I say pretty much, because there are such things as LIFO and FIFO accounting conventions - sometimes we do our damndest to tell apart things that can't really be told apart.
But if we can tell them apart, it's up to us. We have decided to treat money (incl. physical bills) as fungible in most contexts. With laws.
Even with laws there are limits: If someone wants to pay a debt to me, and offer to settle with a 200 NOK bill, it would be illegal for me to refuse, even if I knew this bill had been stolen from me earlier that night.
But if it was a $10 bill, or a bitcoin, it would be perfectly legal for me to refuse. With crypto tokens in general, there's to my knowledge no government on earth stopping me from declaring that I will take payment in bitcoin minted only on Thursdays.
No, the fungibility of money is law, established by legal precedent. Specifically the case of Crawfurd v The Royal Bank (1749).
> On 30 July 1748, an Edinburgh lawyer named Hew Crawfurd mailed two £20 notes to the merchant William Lang in Glasgow, but the letter was lost. Prior to sending them, Crawfurd had meticulously signed his name on the banknotes and recorded their serial numbers, so he notified the Bank of Scotland and advertised his predicament in several newspapers. One of the notes was never found, but the other note turned up at the Royal Bank of Scotland. Crawfurd requested the Royal Bank to open a multiplepoinding action with respect to the note, but the Bank refused. Thus he brought suit in the Court of Sessions against the Royal Bank.
> Both banks were alarmed by his action, as an adverse finding would subject banknotes to infirmities of title like any other property, which would threaten the idea of paper money as a common circulating currency. Despite their generally poor relations with each other at the time, they agreed to cooperate and jointly defend the case.
> No, the fungibility of money is law, established by legal precedent.
Laws ARE a kind of social convention. And to the degree that the fungibility of "money" is law, law also decides what counts as "money", and there's no reason why they (yes, they, not it - law is actually people) should let your crypto-token of choice count as money for legal fungibility purposes.
Since OP seems to be the website author... You should remove or alter the ::selection style in your CSS. In dark mode, selecting text makes it illegible (white on white).
