witrak

[citation needed]

You dare to compare a Wikipedia article (even a short one) to an SE "article," which is, according to SE's own rules, narrowly and up-to-the-point concentrated on an equally narrow formulated question?

Exactly. It allows for a consistent pattern:

cmd1 | cmd2 | cmd3 | ... | cmdn

A product can be both

LOL... A tent is a single product. What about a car? Do you expect to pay separately for the aluminum in the motor and gearbox, as well as for the entire car?

Is the described method good for Enterprise and IoT Windows versions?

They just want you to log in. This costs nothing.

You pay with your data...

> What matters is domain age, IP, and compliance with DKIM/DMARC.

Maybe it was my IP, but I cycled a few with my hosting provider and none of them made a difference. If I am unable to reliable obtain a 'trusted' IP, what good does it do?

That's true. I have a Class C IP range and a domain registered for 30 years and yet Gmail still started ignoring my email server a couple of years ago...

Perhaps, but if you set your browser language to US English you have dates displayed as MM.DD.YYYY and there's no way to change it neither to European nor ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) format.

Your concept appears to have coherence until you consider that numbers are not necessarily expressed in decimal notation. What about hexadecimal numbers in filenames? Should they be sorted your way?

And what about very long strings of digits in the filenames - so long that they are too long for even the longest available numerical representation? In some apps, they are converted to floating point...

It seems nobody remembers the reason for the F-key assignment in the original i.e. Norton Commander... The assignment was very logical and easy to remember (and use) on the original PC keyboard, where F-keys were located in two columns on the left edge of the keyboard: F1, F2, then F3, F4, and so on. You can immediately see the advantages of the F9 location (the leftmost key at the bottom) and of the proximity of the Browse and Edit keys. I used my left thumb to press F10 - it was in the correct place almost without palm movement...

Nowadays I almost don't use Mc (except for file manipulation) because the Linux version has a serious weak point - it blocks the most important keystroke in shell: Tab. It is of course traditionally reserved for panel switching but this role could be deactivated when instead a single command line zone MC would allow to have a multi-line (in NC it was 3 or 4 line) zone for the shell scrolled display. This way it would be possible to have the full-size panel display (with the Tab switching panes) and one keystroke away reduced-size panels with full functionality of the shell tab key in the alternative panel mode... Another disadvantage is the complicated way of changing settings (especially the colors and file attributes display format) in practice forcing trial and error mode... True, it's not needed often but spending hours on it is rather deterrent.

Until there are no unified, standard solutions this is too difficult to be achieved in practice.

What the hell is gpf? I don't like to be forced to search the web to find each locally used unit.

And when will Americans finally learn that instead of the imperial system of units, the rest of the world uses SI?

Hmm... In all the cases I saw the prices were mentioned in EUR not USD as the unit. I consider it a clear indication that the discussion participants are mainly non-Americans ;-)

most car manufacturers have 3-10% gross margins.

I remember some analysis saying that it is true for classic versions like sedan. But on SUVs it is a couple of times bigger...

It is used in all European countries (I don't know any European country that doesn't use it). I know the long scale under the name "European" and the short scale as "American".

If you substitute subliminal messaging with any other technique allowing:

- to influence human behavior, - to prevent an effective countermeasure, - to be controlled by a single issuer, you - use in a selective or mass scale mode against a freely selected population,

then you have an equivalent recipe without SF flavor, because the same analysis shows that humanity cannot defend itself.

Of course, you can ignore existing social media and some cybercrime threats... unless they get included in the military weapons arsenals.

As a result there always be a company accepting messages with false sender identity so scammers can operate easily...

Because to check email your active participation is needed so you must start an application while to accept texting no such action is needed. Thus for short information (read-and-forget) short messaging (SMS or RCS) is more convenient. Of course, you could use a specialized application to check your email account and filter those needing immediate notification, but if such a service is already available what is the reason to generate additional much bigger traffic?

You are categorically mistaken and lack a true understanding of these things.

If you lack the expertise and context, you have no business dictating how things ought to be, and rabble rousing is vile.

Your response seems to be typical for persons who are right because they are right - no args related to the content you respond to and ad personam args instead.

The literature is a way of adding cost to those that would send spam, it also adds cost in other ways.

It is an oversimplified way of evaluating of consequences of overwhelming control the two monopolists have over access of small providers to email services. And it leads to wrong conclusions at least in respect to the range of its influence. Yes, it makes difficult life for the small amateur spammers as strongly as for beginner administrators and service providers.

However while for the determined spammers to hire experts isn't a problem for small entrepreneurs and for non-profit personal activities it is a blocking barrier.

Of course, they can use the services of established providers with all the limitations and other disadvantages of such solutions or accept slavery joining millions of users and firms accepting full and unlimited control of MS and Google (to their undisguised satisfaction).

About the consequences of sudden and totally unexpected interruption of email services without giving reasons we all can read often enough.

Taking into account how thoroughly you explain all the intricate details of memory handling it's strange that in the example you haven't clearly commented on the fact of oversimplification of handling unsuccessful allocation (leading to the potentially risky situation).

To say that "this is a nice example of how fiddly C memory management is" in the discussion is a bit too little - perhaps intended readers of the article would prefer an explicit warning there, just to be aware that they shouldn't forget to abort the program as you do.

This scenario is a solution only in simplest cases. It doesn't work when someone routinely uses a VPN on the phone (when often uses free public wi-fi in airports, railway stations, markets etc) because of possible MITM attacks.

Its really hard to say just how clever AI is getting IMO (as a non-expert in the field).

But then when you give a LLM a completely new problem, not similar to anything they have been trained on - For example, give it a snippet of code and ask it to find the bug. And they can do this. [...] I have done this when stuck on various things with great success.

I'm afraid you follow the same way of thinking about AI as used by the authors of the article: you accept the anthropomorphization of AI programs. Plus you use an unconfirmed assumption in your anecdotal example ("completely new problem, not similar to anything they have been trained on") to support your unjustified delight in AI capabilities.

Both are - in my opinion - bad for AI developments as they support misunderstanding and false image of LLMs and their application in the real world just like "I, Robot" did to create a false understanding of robotics (and AI...).

When I publish code I don't pick any license. It's just free for anyone to use for whatever.

That's not good in all cases as in some jurisdictions it means that any use is forbidden...

ZFS's major failing is that it offers no way to address inevitable filesystem data and free space fragmentation, and while you can remove devices from a ZFS pool, it incurs a permanent performance penalty, because they work around ZFS's architectural inflexibilities by adding a mapping table so it can find the moved chunks of data.

I'm not an FS specialist but by chance a couple of days ago I found an interesting discussion about the reliability of SSD disks where there was a strong warning about the extreme wearing of commercial SSDs by ZFS (up to suggestion to never use ZFS unless you have heavy duty/raid version of SSD disks). So ZFS also has unfinished work and not only the mentioned by you software improvements-related.

BTW From my - nonspecialist - point of view, it is easier to resist the urge to use unreliable features of Btrfs than to replace a bunch of SSD drives. At least if you pay for them from your own pocket.

I agree with one exception:

[...] and audience [...]

If you take into account small market share of Firefox and even smaller percentage of Firefox user needing uBOL then "audience" isn't anything important in this case. Perhaps this whole story will increase popularity of uBOL more...

uBOL is not an important extension on Firefox.

Perhaps you should read some earlier comments then you wouldn't say such things?

Hints: Firefox mobile; range of privileges required.

It may be true, but your point of view isn't the sole possible. Many people have to use more than one browser and for them, the Google decision (effectively forcing the creation of uBOL) was really painful so Hill's new product is of big value. Also, there are people who don't know anything about uBO since they never used Firefox but they probably will start to use uBOL as other blockers for Chromium-based browsers are incomparable to it. Thus 5k downloads of uBOL are no measure of its importance.

Self-hosting inbound email is trivial. Anybody will send email to any random domain, they're just not willing to accept it from random sources.

That is simply not true. I have self-hosted email service and starting about 1.5 yr ago some big email services don't deliver emails to my server anymore. And there are many similar cases reported...

So one can say that even if an independent email service is willing to accept email traffic from any sender it does not guarantee that customers of all other services can have delivered their emails to addresses at the service.

76 ideas which were submitted are currently in development and 84 have been delivered.

So what? Does it invalidate the critics of glacial speed of making other improvements?