zinekeller

Also, even if we strictly looked at the credit side, 3% take is arguably still too much now, even if the mechanics back then did justify the 3% fees. This is why regulators everywhere are now capping fees because the manual "send the imprinted invoices to then sort and get payment" is no longer there (and why they are eager to make fraud harder, unlike the post-facto system that exists in the US)

> B&M is different, Ads are there, but you aren't forced to look at them like Amazon does.

Ignorance is bliss. Unfortunately, even your physical Walmart store is also selling a lot of shelf space to manufacturers/advertisers (similar to how Amazon sell the first slot, or at this point first 'page'), especially those checkout lines (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-grocers-wring-extra-cash-ou...). That's why your on-boots retail staff can't change those planograms (which defines how to layout shelf space in a grocery store) willy-nilly, they're designed by the highest bidder. That's why those soda or chips seems placed in too convenient slots that are also 'coincidental' to those currently advertised in other ways, because it's, plain and simply, paid to be there.

Even if there's newer equipment, Protected Management Frames (PMF) compatibility with older laptops (for example) would be problematic. This is also the reason why WPA2/WPA3 co-existence mode fails on older equipment that is compatible with "normal" WPA2 (because PMF is mandatory in WPA2/3 coex mode).

This probably means that meeting the minimum price does not guarantee that you would be able to buy it due to other (probably opaque) criteria. For example, the seller might not want to sell to you/your company in particular, but is open to other people/companies.

Just tested this.

> Your User-Agent says Windows, but your installed fonts are Linux's. One of those is lying, and it isn't the fonts.

But also...

> Voice list = Microsoft David - English (United States) [snip]

> You use Microsoft Office.

Considering that this is tested on Windows 11, I think your Linux detection is wonky.

Lots of HN readers located in countries outside of the US would find your answer infeasible (even the bank website requires their app for authentication, and this is the case for every bank).

There should be examples under the links I have added to the original comment. Unfortunately, I cannot give examples that I personally encountered (first, NDA, sorry, second, the ISPs would probably be very incensed to me), but browsing BGP collector sites would probably illuminate you, like this one (https://bgp.tools/prefix/41.189.185.0/24#whois, https://bgp.tools/prefix/41.189.185.0/24#dns) for caching Facebook and other Meta stuff, and this one (https://bgp.tools/prefix/2001:918:ffad::/48#whois) is for Akamai.

Some CDNs (like Cloudflare) use solely BGP anycast steering for routing to the "nearest" server. Other CDNs (like Akamai, Fastly, Netflix, and YouTube) use a hybrid BGP-DNS steering because some ISPs have extremely questionable routing practices.

Unfortunately, if the CDN only rely on BGP steering (or conversely if you are a user who is stuck on an ISP monopoly), there are cases where this is not necessarily the nearest network-wise (or performant network-wise) if there are peering disputes. If the said ISP is a virtual monopoly or (worse) state-sanctioned to collect network "toll fees" (like in South Korea), non-preferred and international routes are (intentionally) congested.*

If you use a third-party DNS, you basically lose this DNS optimization, and ECS does not fully solve this (because sometimes the DNS override are placed only on the ISP's recursive DNS servers). You're basically in a lose-lose position: either use third-party servers and the IP addresses served to you on popular CDNs are in the congested path, or use the often-unreliable and heavily-logged ISP-provided DNS.

* Usually. There are exceptions, but this comment is just a simplification of the complexities of real-life networking (where RFCs and mutual cooperation die out without fanfare).

Edit for further reading: DNS is the new BGP by Geoff Huston of APNIC (https://ispcol.potaroo.net/2023-09/service-routing.html), How LinkedIn used PoPs and RUM to make dynamic content download 25% faster from the old LinkedIn engineering team (Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20160310065302/https://engineeri...), Wikimedia's mapping of their CDNs (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/dn...)

Without disputing the added latency of CGNAT, the v6-only peering fights (not just the infamous Cogent-HE dispute but smaller regional ISPs peering only on v4) means that there are indeed cases where v6 is worse than v4 in practice. Again, nothing inherently wrong with v6 itself, but peering disputes means bad latency on v6, which means that protocols relying on TCP (like plain FTP, SFTP and rsync) really takes a hit in transfer speeds.

Also there are cases where the ISP didn't bother even optimizing their routing in v6. I understand that some ISPs in Asia (and especially in Japan, where it shows up on ordinary customers in terms like MAP-E and VNEs) have separate backplanes for v4 and v6 (some are legacy reasons, some are business reasons). Guess which one is being devoted more in practice (hint: not the one being devoted more by IETF).

Edit: I thought this was just in Asia, but apparently this is also the case in an ISP in UK (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48618403)

Actually, it depends on the Windows scheduler settings. On Windows Server, the default is to kill the foreground process (on the assumption that it is just a management app rather than a critical server component).

This is their last hurrah where Sony is primarily in control (yes, the panels are from LG et al. and the main processor is a Mediatek, sheesh). The TCL JV will formally commence in FY 2027 (April 2027).

> does fork–exec copy all the process's memory

NT: Yes? Why not?

(note that this refers to the Windows NT kernel's operation because it had historically a POSIX emulation layer (NT Personalities), not the modern WSL which is just Linux in a Hyper-V)

Basically, CT did indeed worked as designed, but there was no monitoring by the domain authors (which to be fair there are a dearth of solutions of the time).

On a related note, Let's Encrypt also issued the presumably-interception certificates. This can be possibly something that requires interception at the VPS level (otherwise we already detected the BGP leaks). Presumably, Hetzner was forced to do a raw interception and then redirecting all relevant ports to a middlebox for inspection and CA issuance (and since that the ACME spec is well-defined, they can simply check if the handshake contains the TLS ALPN challenge and then redirect them to special code that will reply with the correct things).

And as stated by others, it's about not complying with GDPR et al. Heck, this is not even Cloudflare, it's AWS Cloudfront!

Not OP, but considering the American case (OpenAI) I do understand the OP's concern.

I can see why you thought it was, but "Open Price" in Japan means that the manufacturer has forgo setting the price themselves, unlike the previous policy that the price is dictated by Nintendo (in this case). The wholeseller's price... is simply not disclosed here, there's an NDA on that one (even with other companies such as Sony).

MTA-STS, a very recent standard (RFC 8461), only allows CRLF as the line terminator (to the chagrin of *nix lovers, and to the fact that a majority of mail systems are being operated on *nix systems)

I won't dispute you or even cassianoleal, but compared to how was US in 2005 (just barely finishing check/que digitalization), Brazil is indeed faster in this forefront (and it enabled the creation of Pix in the first place).

As already stated multiple times here, the CRLF is actually the "correct" way (at least in the telex days, where CR and LF have actual meanings of "Return Carriage to home" and "Feed a new Line"), while the LF-only one is a Unix "hack"/abstraction (which was actually converted back into CRLF if fed to a telex or a terminal). It is not really a surprise that DOS, which was inspired by CP/M, simply copied what was supposed to be a physical signal. This is the reason the ASCII/ANSI code has a BEL indicator for ringing a bell. In short, CRLF is the way to handle newlines at the time that DOS was designed. You will expect that CRLF is the ending because that's how terminals work (unlike with the magicking Unix which smooshes two differing things into a character).

If you are writing a developer suite, whether you're Delphi developing for MS-DOS or Microsoft developing for Apple II, you kinda have the idea of how things should work (because you have the reference book for the platform, not the compiler/language). It is not the assumption that the OS provides abstraction for text - in thise days, everyone just implement it from scratch, really ("code page" was from literal code pages, where each character has a well-defined byte). This is manifested in command-line handling on Windows: the platform convention is that it is just a flat string, and the C runtime determines how to chop that up (MSVC and Intel C has historically disagreed heavily here) The abberation of Windows only having CRLF is because Unix-based designs took over the world: macOS is Unix, Linux was insiped by Unix, *BSD was Unix-derived.

> No idea why this is a thing actually

a) It still affects their bottom-line: the issuer might still try to dispute this using a different code despite payment scheme (formal term for Visa et al.) rules, and the merchant targeted is prone for fraud (for example, airlines have been hit with this by exploiting tourists looking for cheaper tickets by offering them suspiciously cheap tickets on seemingly-trustworthy websites by fraudsters and funding them by insecure cards)

b) Misinterpretation of mandatory rules: PDS2 is applicable only for EEA customer - EEA merchant, but some extended it for whole world despite the rules literally dictating the limits

c) Soft friction for encouraging domestic card usage: because of accept-all rules by payment schemes (and no local rules that allowed merchants in a region to reject international payments), this is a way to block US cards by guise of fraud prevention (because international cards are expensive for merchants to process)

Unless the GP post was edited after your response, you've basically ignored the whole second paragraph.

I think this is in the sense of needing a modern-ish hardware with VT-x/AMD-V support (instead of the already-contemporary v8086 which is already in use by Windows at this time).

TLDR: you're basically applying the US standard to something that has been released worldwide, and US intellectual property law is known to be one of the most lax when dealing on derivatives (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). Without saying that the original broadcaster/s do not held any copyright (because, of course, there is a reasonable claim for their copyright), there are two good candidates for the Conet Project's case, both hinging on European IP laws.

The first one is the "sweat of the brow" concept, where effort (not originality, or at least not significant originality) is the determiner. Because this was released in 2001, most European jurisdictions (like Britain's "skill and labour" and Germany's Leistungsschutzrecht) still had this concept. Because the collaborators of the Conet Project did exert significant effort here (they didn't just tune, but significantly denoised and made it reasonably intelligible), it could be argued that they held a new copyright on these works. New laws now significantly tilt towards the creativity/originality concept, but this is usually not a retroactive claim.

The second claim (and the reason that I said IP laws, not specifically copyright laws) is that Europe (incl. UK and Russia) has database rights which does not exist under US law (again, Feist v. RTS). Even if the Conet Project release is ineligible for copyright in most European jurisdictions (and I doubt it due to the non-retroactivity of these laws), they can still point out that the curation of the work provided for enforcement of database rights.

There is actually a third claim (although weak), based on the first publication of a recording of a performance (phonogram rights). This also exists under US laws, although I will be sure that the first "publication" is the broadcast, especially if it was also aimed in the US. (This is the reason why "sampling" some music is considered an IP infringement.)

P.S. If you think that US IP laws are bonkers, try to navigate European IP laws (it's not even harmonized inside EU). There's even a "Copyright in Typographical Arrangement" (UK) where even assuming that the text itself is not copyright, scanning the page might put you into a lawsuit (https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/copyright-typo...)

Since no-one bothered to answer, the way the license was written did not disclaim any warranty. Sure, US jurisprudence might beg that there is no implied warranty, but most jurisdictions would interpret that as having unlimited warranty. In most places, what-you-pay is not the default to warranty claims, but instead focuses on what are the actual damages to the user. Notably, Australian/NZ and EU (especially Germany and Austria) has extremely strong consumer protection laws which also covers software, and WTFPL didn't even attempt to limit liabilities.

NB: For reference, here's the disclaimer for several popular licenses:

MIT:

  THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

GPLv3:

  15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

  THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

  16. Limitation of Liability.

  IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

  17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

  If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.

CC0 (just to drive the point home):

  4. Limitations and Disclaimers.

  (Subsection a (which focused on trademarks and patents) omitted for brevity.)

  b. Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including without limitation warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non infringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the present or absence of errors, whether or not discoverable, all to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law.

For context, this was proposed way back in 2013 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia), when machine translation is just plain bad (and LLMs are only known in academic circles). Surprised that AWiki is now active though.