kroeckx
kroeckx on Hacker News
Even when they are a CNA, there are procedures to get a CVE issued.
Maybe they meant encoding, the file format.
All ADCs I have looked at document that they can't represent the positive full scale. For instance, for an 8 bit ±1 V ADC, -128 represents -1 V, +127 represents 127/128=0.99219 V. The transition from 126 to 127 happens at 1.5 LSB from the positive full range. 1 LSB difference represents 1/128 = 0.00781 V difference, and not 2 / 255 = 0.00784 V.
But if you actually care about what the voltage (and uncertainty) is, most of this is difference is mostly pointless, you're reference will have a bias, there are linearity errors and so on. 1 LSB will not match either the 1/128 or 2/255, you will need parameters to compensate for it.
As others have pointed out, the 2nd color is not something I would call either blue or green. It never showed anything I would call blue. So really I have told it the border where I still call something green. So is my green your green?
It's my understanding that is about generating the .iso file from the .deb files, not about generating the .deb files from source. Generating .deb from source in a reproducible way is still a work in progress.
For the major browsers, this probably makes little difference, but for anything else, this will most likely result in not verifying the revocation status of certificates anymore or making things slower.
As far as I know, most browser vendors already download the CRLs, and then update the browsers based on what they downloaded. For instance firefox seems to be using CRLite. There is a lack of support for something like that in the non-major browsers and non-browsers. The alternative they have is to download the CRL instead of the OCSP reply, which is larger, probably making things slower. Or they could just not check the status, which is most likely what will happen.
CRLite changes the failure mode of the status check, it no longer just ignores error in downloading the status information.
We need better support for something like CRLite.
Is a passkey a software implementation of a FIDO key? Where the implementation could use something like the TPM to protect the key.
Yes, the dates are correct.
C2 is error detection, not correction. C1 is the error correction. I think what wikipedia is trying to say is that the C2 error detection just points out something is wrong, even after the C1 error correction, and so you can't fix it. But a data CD has additional error correction, so it can correct more errors.
An audio CD has 2352 audio bytes per sector. The sector also contains C1 error correction and C2 error detection.
On a data CD, those 2352 bytes are split in 2048 data bytes, plus an additional 4 error detection, 276 error correction, plus some other bytes including an address. So there is an extra layer of error correction.
As one of the other links explains, ripping the same CD on the same drive a 100 time might still not produce the correct rip. Something like AccurateRip works by having multiple copies of the CD scanned, and then voting which one is the correct version.
I forgot that CTDB (http://db.cuetools.net/) exists, which is is an alternative to AccurateRip. CUETools is open source Windows software to rip CDs. Instead of just providing a checksum of the track, it provides error correction information. So instead of just getting that you probably have a bad rip, and keep getting a bad rip, it's possible to correct the rip. EAC has a CTDB plugin that's installed by default, whipper currently doesn't support it.
AccurateRip is not something from EAC, it's from dbpoweramp.
This is based on submission to AccurateRip. As I understand it, it's how many tracks submitted by users owning that drive match the what AccurateRip considers the correct rip.
If you care about accurate rips on Linux, the best tool to use is whipper:
https://github.com/whipper-team/whipper. It makes use of the AccurateRip database, which is used to calculate the statistics. I don't know about any other native Linux application that makes use of it. Other tools like cdparanoia, and all the wrappers around it, just attempt to read it multiple times and still get the wrong result, as the post shows.
I assume that he measured the power consumption himself. You can find a lot of cheap devices that you can plug between your wall socket and the device. They are not usable for measurement at low power. If you try to measure something in the 0 - 1 W range, most just show 0, others even show something like 30 W.
There isn't a "remove result" button. At the bottom there is a "Privacy settings", "How Search works" and "Cached" button, while the screenshot shows "Remove result" and "How Search works".
Having unsuccessfully gone through 2 different procedures to try to remove that page from Google search result, I have little faith that it will work now.
For the torque, you can use a low current using more windings, which has the same effect of having a higher current with less windings.
The acceleration you can reach is mostly limited by the peak current and the force constant, but the maximum speed you can reach at that acceleration is mostly limited by the voltage you have available because of the back-EMF. A simplified formula is that the voltage you need is R * I + v * BEMF. The higher the voltage is, the better the insulation between the windings needs to be. You need to find a balance between the different properties.
The newer satellites, of which 5 are in orbit, also have a directional antenna with which they will be able to boost the signal strength 20 dB (100 * power), using a new military M-code that no longer needs the other signals to lock on. The signal is sent both over the wide area and the spot beam antenna. Older satellites will only sent it over a wide area antenna. As far as I understand, this is not operational yet, but is planned for this year.
In 2000, Bill Clinton has banned the use of Selective Availability. Newer satellites, decided in 2007, first launched in 2018 don't even have the capability anymore.
I'm still not really convinced about how much entropy is collected by the jitter entropy technique. I've been looking at
https://github.com/smuellerDD/jitterentropy-library previously, which is for instance used by OpenWRT. It's hard to do a proper estimation of the entropy, because depending on how you measure it, you get different results. The library has been changed, but it's probably still overestimating the entropy.
My understanding is that vaccination, recovery and a negative test are 3 separate QR codes. You normally only need 1 of the 3.
I'm a dox victim and live in Europe. I've tried to use my right to be forgotten and used Google's removal request, to which the answer was:
"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this URL - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest.
Based on the information available to us at this time, Google LLC has decided not to take action on this URL."
I've now tried the other URL, but I doubt this will help.
The article you point to does not mention anything about certificate transparency. They do not only depend on their own CT log to issue certificates, but also on CT logs run by external parties to issue a certificate.
Google's current policy still seems to require them to use 1 Google log, and 1 other non-Google log given the lifetime. They seem to use 1 Google log, and 1 other random log, including their own.
I'm doubt the logs will be able to keep up.
I suggest you have a hostname for each service. So you could change the hostname of the mx but have it point to the same IP address. You can then have a certificate for each hostname. Certbot can generate/renew the certificate using http even if that hostname normally doesn't do http.
Will VAAPI get enabled (on X11) by default too?
Some standards define a frequency response of the whole measurement chain, including things like the frequency response of your sensor and anti aliasing filter. An FFT is the easiest way to deal with that.
For music copyright is split in 2 types: composition and recording. The copyright on the composition is probably expired, but on a recording most likely isn't. The automated system most likely claims it's a copy of a copyrighted recording. Since it's a popular piece, it can be hard to tell recordings apart.
Note that the composition might also still have a copyright because it's not the original composition but a derived work, but that seems unlikely in this case.