ZeroConcerns

Not really -- any secrets stored using this method should also live in a password manager somewhere. It's about providing more-secure programmatic access to secrets.

Basically, it rebuilds Windows DPAPI from first principles, which is fine (I've done it many times myself!), and something non-Windows platforms sorely need. It changes the impact of malware from "they dumped all our secrets from prod to their C2" to "they got some encrypted values, and now someone will need to figure out our methodology and underlying keys", which is a meaningfully higher bar.

Ah, yes, I see... Are the known security issues that Telegram stubbornly refuse to fix in the room with us right now?

Yeah, I have some bad news about that huge bug bounty you're expecting... ChatGPT was wrong, and there is no way to close the HackerNews account you just created, so all the abuse that deservedly comes your way will, in fact, be on your permanent record.

DAC frequency and the audio format requirements for whatever you supply to your platform audio API have literally nothing to do with each other.

My reply was from an audio mastering perspective.

> it's probably worth avoiding the resampling of 44.1 to 48 kHz

Ehhm, yeah, duh? You don't resample unless there is a clear need, and even then you don't upsample and only downsample, and you tell anyone that tries to convince you otherwise to go away and find the original (analog) source, so you can do a proper transfer.

Depends on the type of cable assembly. If it's fiber strands inside a soft-ish plastic jacket (and most of the cable is in fact in conduit), a service loop is fine, albeit a bit pointless for most repair scenarios. For armored cables (which are significantly stiffer), you only do these loops in situations where you expect to need to replace significant sections (think 'getting hit by a falling tree' or 'particularly aggressive rodents') and you have the space.

Good conduit and patch panel design is definitely key for a happy life. Leaving some extra space/capacity initially is also a good idea, especially since (unless you're covering truly great distances) there's not exactly a lot of innovation in the single mode fibre space: strands you put in today (even if it's 'the cheapest stuff your vendor sells most of', which is generally my philosophy for selecting cables) will still be viable a few years down the road.

Sharing/in-place-repurposing conduit is not something I'd recommend, but if you must, leave a few dummy cables (a.k.a. 'pieces of string') on the initial install...

Those 10 loops definitely only apply to the single mode fibre itself, not the entire assembly with armor and everything, because that's just... physically impossible.

Cables for direct burial only like to be bent once or twice, and then only gently. Anything else may very well break the armor (whether plastic or metal), after which all bets are off.

Still, for the outer jacket to become brittle to the extent described, something else is required, which may very well turn out to be "shoddy manufacturing"...

There's no link to the data sheet of the actual cable, but, yeah, looks like this should not have happened in such a short timeframe unless there's something really funny going on in that room, like ambient temperatures above 50 degC.

Another thing that should not have happened is installing the cable in loops in this way: any 'building' or 'underground' type cable needs to be of the exact length required at the demarcation point, fastened properly to prevent movement and terminated on a proper patch panel (can be a one-port box-type thingy for small setups), from where you use regular patch cords to connect your equipment.

(Loops are definitely allowed though, but that use case is mostly for aerial fiber to enable repair splices, and there are some very specific bend-radius and strain relief requirements, which, again should be spelled out in the cable data sheet)

> Can this be fixed?

For popular senders: sort-of: in your incoming mail server, substring-match the display name of the sender against popular brands, and ensure the actual domain matches.

This works remarkably well for proper brands (FedEx et al), but breaks down when the brand name regularly occurs in "normal" names, the sending brand sends mail from all over the place, or "innocuous" impersonation takes place all the time.

Like, somehow, From: "VODAFONE" <[email protected]> is a 100% legit sender (assuming SPF and DKIM verification pass), despite both Vodafone and DPD being pretty common impersonation targets. You'd think they'd know better, but alas.

So, yeah, room for improvement and such...

Well, I can travel around most of Europe without a passport right now? ID card will do just fine, even though, really, nobody ever asks me for that either.

Meanwhile, my life expectancy is, like at least twice that 'prior to WW1' and my disposable income at least 20 times my take-home pay in 1917.

Bloody EU, innit...

You'd be surprised at how cheap, relatively safe and reliable bus services are in those regions.

Source: me and my wife traveled extensively by public transport in, well, at least Pakistan. The other countries are indeed sort-of hairy, but mostly for job-clearance-related reasons.

> You just need a nuclear-powered Big Bus

Ah, so there is a chance!