TheLoneWolfling

If the time differential is too extreme it will skip ahead or back instead of just skewing.

> ...The ntpd algorithms discard sample offsets exceeding 128 ms, unless the interval during which no sample offset is less than 128 ms exceeds 900s. The first sample after that, no matter what the offset, steps the clock to the indicated time.

> This may on occasion cause the clock to be set backwards if the local clock time is more than 128 [m]s in the future relative to the server. In some applications, this behavior may be unacceptable.

And when someone embeds an entire book (that was otherwise written and they have the rights for) into the handshake, what then?

> there are cases where the firmware inherently requires copyrighted material (For instance, requiring a (copyrighted) poem in a handshake).

> If you want to blow away the firmware...

False premise: you often cannot blow away the firmware, because it is either hard-coded, or signed.

And even when said premise is correct for a device, there are cases where the firmware inherently requires copyrighted material (For instance, requiring a (copyrighted) poem in a handshake).

It isn't.

You have a problem. You use a regex. Now you have two problems.

Not possible. There are > 2 intersections with an odd number of streets. (Note that this includes dead-end streets)

Again, "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation)."

So is it acceptable to post separate threads about the topic of paywalls, then? Because if so, please make that explicit. At the very least, I did not get that impression, and reading through this thread it would appear I am not alone. And - assuming it is acceptable - how? Ask HN does not seem appropriate. Tell HN does not seem appropriate. HN doesn't generally have discussion threads on their own right. We are being told that other threads are not appropriate. The HN guidelines say "Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something (e.g. to ask us questions about Y Combinator, or to ask or complain about moderation)." So where is appropriate, then?

Also, the reason why said discussions are starting to "choke other threads like weeds" is because it is rather hard to have a discussion about something when one has to resort to increasingly-complex and quasi-legal methods (if not downright illegal in some places) just to read the content people are trying to have a discussion about.

I think it is a subject that should be brought up. I do not think that a flat-out "stop complaining about it" is the proper response - and, to be frank, it disappoints me that that is the approach you seem to have decided to take.

It very much reminds me of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand - namely, that the response of a link aggregator to more and more of the links it aggregates disappearing is to say "no it's not, there are <insert increasingly complex and increasingly quasi-legal workarounds here>, now stop complaining".

It's not just now that should be worrying, it's the continuation of the trend. And a website as major as this within its domain is one of the few that has more than a snowball's chance in Hell to divert said trend, assuming it acts in a timely fashion. But this is just waiting around like a lobster in a pot of water being slowly heated.

What bugs me is not so much caching as redundant caching.

I've seen applications that have 5 redundant caches, if not more (on-disk cache, OS cache, VM OS cache, stdlib cache, programmer-visible cache). And then you end up killing the actually-important caches (CPU caches, etc) from the amount of redundant copying required...