chmike

> I don't get it

Is it hard to understand that for some people it may be difficult to read ? It might be due to motivation issues, thrust issues, or concentration issues. While at the same time they may have a rich inner imagination or thinking that they would like to share.

My impression is that humanity might miss valuable insight by rejecting whatever is not "well written" whatever the reason might be.

You may feel yourself very luck if you don't have any difficulties to read and write. Avoid to judge severely people who don't share the same facilities.

How does mox compare to maddy, another Go all in one mail server ? Does mox support antivirus addition ? Didn't see that in the docs but I may have skipped that section.

humor: I wonder if the upvotes are cheerings that he finally stepped down or a respectful salute. I give my respectful salute.

Go is awesome and I hope it will continue to progress in that direction. Thank you Russ Cox

While I agree that we're not there yet, I'm one of the people who assumes that it is feasible to beat humans intellectually.

The problem is not being unpaid. The problem is lack of verification and control, which itself result from lack of help and participation. You won't fix these problems by throwing money at it.

And human generated data may not ?

What I don't understand is why computers and operating systems have not adopted the TAI as time reference which is monotonic, etc. Time is a complete mess.

I would have tried parallelism just by curiosity. Split and spread the computation over multiple cores. If you have n cores you could get close to a factor n increase minus the cost of spreading the data and combining the results. That's an easy optimization right out of the box with go (no assembly required).

It depends on the distribution of probabilities of being used. If least recently used data has the same probability to be requested than the others, then random picking will do as well as LRU.

When the least recently used data does have a lower probability to be requested, than LRU will outperform random picking.

There is no silver bullet algorithm.

The peer review system is definitely biased. It's ok for many articles, but there are outliers. For instance really original theories or experimental data. The publication may be stopped to avoid putting the journal's reputation at risk or because the reviewers have personal reasons to not support the article (it would shade their own pet theory, invalidate their research project, they didn't understood it, etc.).

The problem with publishing elsewhere is that many people unable to objectively evaluate the validity of the theory juge its value by the reputation of the journal. Also the other journal will most probably have less visibility. There is thus a higher chance that the other theory will not be reported in reviews.

There are many assumptions in the above comment that I can't agree with. But my experience is with physics, not computer science.

The effectiveness really depends on the request pattern. In some use case, the LRU is the most efficient. When it is purely random, it obviously won't be the best as any value has the same probability to be selected.

Regarding simplicity, there is a simpler algorithm where we don't need the next and prev pointers. We simply replace the non-flagged value at the hand. This is most probably what is used in CPUs.

A close up section of the same zone in the images would make them visible. I could hardly see the artefacts in the first place as my attention was caught with the highly contrasted parts of the images.

I suggested the certificate solution but it's far from being lightweight. I found a simpler solution that may fit some use cases.

The client sends a request, the server returns a response that may be big that also contains a random value. The client must return this random value in a thank you message.

If the server doesn't receive the thank you message, it slows down responses to that ip address and eventually blacklist it if it's repeated.

From the client perspective, the answer is obtained in one round trip time. The price to pay on the server is the need to keep track of the expected thank you messages, and the throttled or blacklisted addresses.

A three way handshake would be simpler and wouldn't waste cpu and energy.

Thank you. It's the best argument against the certificate suggestion I have read so far. It's a problem I overlooked.

Edit: If the server creates the certificate with a three way handshake, it will use the remote IP address. So the client doesn't have to know it's IP address

I didn't mean to generalize the use of certificate. It would be for a specific protocol for a specific application. I just wanted to justify that we are not required to use three way handshake.

Revocation is indeed a weak point of this solution as it would take time, probably a transaction, to check. This problem might be mitigated by shortening the certificate validity duration.

I don't see why time synchronization would be critical if the validity periods are slightly overlapping.

In prior configuration, the UDP client must get a certificate which uses three way handshake to verify the IP address. Once a client has it's certificate, it can perform transactions with a simple two way transactions.

The problem result from the ability to forge a fake origin IP address. This can be avoided by adding a certificate for the IP address. It adds a processing and size overhead, but it also preserves the single round trip transaction.

Thank you very much. Here is my email address: [email protected] I have just set it up. It should work

I'ld love to login lobste.rs but we need an invite to join. How can we join if we don't know anybody ? This leaves good people out.

That voting system seams overly complex, but an idea worth to be explored and tested.

There is a french company named mailinblack [1] that does this. They protect administrations in this way.

[1] https://www.mailinblack.com/

Note: My comment is about communication restrictions and not about Imran Khan or Pakistan.

Restricting communication does indeed introduce a bias in information that people may get and thus the opinion they may forge. As such, freedom of communication is a pilar of democracy. But in some cases, communication may also be harmful and should be limited. Regardless if the info is true or false, if it may generate a harmful mass movement, it should be restrained. It's a bit more subtile than that, but I can't develop for conciseness.

I'm obviously talking about ebooks downloaded from commercial platforms like KDP Amazon, and distributed for free on Z-library without permission from the author.

Comparing this to your comment is whataboutism. Comments on hacker news are free to read. If you want to be payed for your writing, use a platform that support this.

However, you do have an automatic copyright on everything you write and I would need your permission (eventually by paying you a fee) to republish it in a book or somewhere else. Fair use is an exception to that, but the amount of text we can reuse without permission is limited. These are rules.

You steal the author's investment in time and effort to write the book and conceive it's content.

How you steal (making a copy) doesn't affect the fact that you prevent the author to get his share or reward from it.

That is pure whataboutism.

What has this to do with stealing books ?