I interpreted the GP comment very differently. I took it to just mean that “we” as “humanity as a whole” have constructed the no privacy world we inhabit. Which seems quite true. I don’t get any sense of casting blame on individuals for lacking the technical acumen to secure their own data. I absolutely agree with your sentiment though.
Humans aren't a cohesive team acting with a common goal, so we do a lot of things to other humans that would be crazy if those other humans counted as "ourselves" and we were a team, such as trade sanctions, closed borders, chemical warfare, resource competition, Coldplay, and of course greenhouse gas emissions. But we've never been a team, and it's an implausible expectation.
You’re also giving Google feedback when you click a search result link. Presumably that should be a huge signal for measuring search quality.
Heck, Google even promoted the `ping`[0] anchor attribute feature so they can log what link you click without slowing you down. (Firefox doesn’t support ping, which means when Firefox users click on a Google search result link they’re sent to an internal google.com URL first and then redirected for logging purposes)
TCP has built in checksums that prevent most data corruption. I believe this is why it’s not part of HTTP, because TCP should already be doing this for you.
I’m guessing that for your very large file download you had an unusually high number of corrupted TCP packets and some of those were extra unlucky and still had valid checksums.
Or something else went wrong, so the TCP packets are correct for what some backend told it to have, just wasn't what should have been served for 1-2 packets or whatever.
The most likely thing by far is that the download failed part way through, but the error was never reported, or the reported error was never checked.
Also, it's quite possible that the HTTP client didn't even know that the download failed: a common pattern is for the server to send a Content-Length of 0, and simply close the connection when it's done sending all of the traffic (i.e. set the TCP FIN flag on the last data packet). If the server decides to abandon the connection early for any reason, then it will... close the connection - which the client will just interpret as the end of the body, and have no idea that the file failed to download fully.
The APIs to implement traffic policies on a per-app basis just don’t exist on iOS. You can create a VPN connection and have an app manage all network traffic that way, but you can’t associate traffic with specific apps since this would run afoul of their sandbox. At least without jailbreaking.
Zero Trust just means you stop inherently trusting your private network and verify every user/device/request regardless. If you opt in to using Cloudflare to do this then it requires running Cloudflare software.
Thats one interpretation... ZT also posits assuming the network is compromised and hostile, that also applies to CF and their cloud/network. It blows my mind that so many solutions claim ZT while mandating TLS to their infra/cloud, you can trust their decryption of your date, and worst IMHO, they will MITM your OICD/SAML key to ensure the endpoint can authenticate and access services... that is a hell of a lot of implicit trust in them, not least of them being served a court order to decrypt your data.
Zero trust done correctly done not have those same drawbacks.
Zero Trust means you stop trusting your private network, and start trusting Cloudflare, and installing their special root certificate so they can MITM all your web traffic. To keep you safe.
Technically I guess that's "zero trust" in the sense of meeting the requirement of not trusting internal connections more than external ones, but in practice I guess "zero trust" also typically entails making every connection go through the same user-based authentication system, which uploading specific keys to specific servers manually definitely doesn't achieve.
I just tried to signup for a new Hamina account... and I've failed after spending 15 minutes on it. It seems they have a bug in the last step of the signup process that makes the final "continue" button always be disabled. Forcibly enabling it by modifying the DOM appears to work at first and lets me submit the form, but it doesn't result in a new account being created.
I have a suspicion it's flagged my signup as potentially abusive or something due to my various privacy enhancements...
By a stricter definition, a pedestrian is one who travels by foot. Of course, they are walking, but they’re traveling via their car, so by some interpretations you wouldn’t call them a pedestrian. You could call them a “motorist” or a “stranded vehicle occupant”.
For understanding the accident it does seem meaningful that they were motorists that got out of their car on a highway and not pedestrians at a street crossing. (Still inexcusable of course, but changes the context)
Cars and drivers ideally shouldn't hit people who exited their vehicles after an accident on a highway. Identifying and avoiding hazards is part of driving.
As far as I am aware, pes doesn't carry an inherent meaning of travel. Pedestrian just means foot on, they don't need to be moving, they're just not in carriage. As an aside, distinguishing a person's mode of presence is precisely what reports aim to capture.
(I also do tend to avoid this level of pedantry, the points here are all well taken to be clear. I do think the original poster was fine in their comment, I was just sayin' - but this isn't a cross I would die on :))
Great question! Could just be Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS like someone mentioned. Essentially the landing arms know their position very precisely and they measure the tiny errors in GPS data, and send that correction data live to the rocket in real-time as it's landing. Once the rocket gets very very close it could also just be using vision systems to zero-in on exactly where the chopsticks are.
To speculate more, they could also be using something like ultra-wide band positioning. This relies on the same time-of-flight principle as GPS but instead of using satellites in orbit to provide the precise time information you rely on various nearby ground stations. Would only be useful right at the final approach, the last couple hundred meters, but it's another way they could get very very precise position information. (fun fact: Ultra Wide band positioning is also how iPhones can locate AirTags with centimeter accuracy)
Why bother with GPS or other "absolute" coordinate systems? Once the rocket's in close, all that matters is relative position and orientation of the rocket with respect to the landing apparatus. Eg, if you had many sensors in known locations on the rocket and many sensors in known locations on the landing apparatus, and you could measure relative positions between all pairs of these sensors, you could get extremely precise relative position/orientation information without beaming information to satellites or whatever.
I think linear bookshelf distance is a normal unit for talking about collections. At least as informative as number of books. Guessing 15 meters per bookshelf from photos, 214 bookshelves? doesn't sound as cool to me.
3.2km of linear storage space makes sense for books. You aren't just piling them up in stacks, where volume might be a useful measure, and you aren't putting them arbitrarily deep on the same row because that prevents access. You'll usually store things like this one book deep. If you have a 4-row shelf where you could have an 8-row shelf with the same width, each row 1m wide, you have 4m vs 8m of linear storage space.
reply