Based on your analogue they drive the car for 7.5 inches (614.4 Kb by 63360 inches by 20 divided by 103179878.4 Kb) and promise based on that that car travels 20mph which might be true, yes, but the scale disproportion is too considerable to not require tests. This is not maths, this is a real physical device - how would it would behave on larger real data remains to be seen.
106 Gbps
They get to this result on 0.6 MB of data (paper, page 5)
They even say:
Moreover, there is no need to evaluate our design with datasets larger than the ones we have used; we achieve steady state performance with our datasets
This requires an explanation. I do see the need - if you promise 100Gbps you need to process at least a few Tbs.
print("x") is you want to screw your students.
Excel enabled non-programmers to create basically any app as long as they are fine with a cell-based UI. Same with Access and CRUD apps. I know people love to dunk on M$ here, and for good reasons too, but these two programs are probably responsible for a decent chunk or PoC/v1 projects worldwide.
A few years ago people were talking about convergence of phone/desktop, i.e. you plug your phone into a big screen and keyboard and it’s now your desktop computer.
Mobile apps are shit for that. Sure, my phone is powerful enough to browse internet, play video and music but on desktop with mouse/kb it’s just weird and funky. And I’m not even talking about any productivity software which is straight impossible.
Not for the seedbox, but for the personal always on VPN I would def prefer something nearshore.
Why? I refuse to believe there’s no location in SA with a decent internet and without DMCA enforcement.
Be ware of using VPN if you want spanish content and wanna join a private tracker; all spanish private tracker ban the use of VPNs
What’s the rationale for that?
Uggh, yes, that.
Nowadays it’s change settings, refresh page, navigate 10 intermediate pages because SPA, confirm that your settings stuck.
That is conveniently left out of the speck. Attestation server may require signed binary on a client system, it may require whatever it wants really, because why not? It’s a website who decides to trust attestation server or not.
They aren’t proposing a way for browsers to DRM page contents and prevent modifications from extensions.
And yet, this proposal would make it easier to do so.
Basically, it would allow websites to only serve users who comply with website requirements (i.e., no extensions, no ad blockers, only Chrome-based, whatever) whatever these requirements are.
You (your browser) go to a website, example.com, which requires attestation. So you must go to an attestation server and attest your device/browser combo (by telling the attestation server whatever information it requires). If the attestation server thinks you are trustworthy, it gives you an integrity token that you pass to example.com, and then you can see example.com. The website knows which attestation server issued your integrity token, so you can’t create your own.
So no extra software means no attestation server would attest you; means you can’t see example.com. End of story. It’s the same as the current “your browser is not supported” window, only you can’t get around it by changing the user agent.
As usual with these initiatives, bullshit is spread across different specs - this spec by itself implies that any number of attestation servers can exist, and they can check whatever they want, and no browser should be excluded, etc., etc., but practical implementation would probably check installed extensions, etc.
cs.github.com is the best code search ever offered, especially at GitHub scale.
Still wild to me how competition shoots themselves in the foot. It’s even worse than streaming services.