alfons_foobar

> major providers (including all of Cloudflare) responded to it by disabling DNSSEC

Yeah I was very confused by this as well.

But then again, I think/hope that anyone relying on DNS / DNSSEC for security-related $THINGS is _probably_ running their own validating resolver.

You mean because the majority of the DNS is still unsigned?

that link 404's :(

just curious, what problems do you see with gobgp?

(I have only a rather basic familiarity with go, but was considering gobgp for an infra project...)

not an app per se, but pandoc is great...

ahh, gotcha! thanks!

Sorry, I am being dense... how does that solve the problem?

I still have to get a connection from the pool, I just do it inside the function body now, right?

So this

    @app.get("/users")
    def get_users(conn = Depends[get_db_conn]):
        users = conn.execute("SELECT * FROM users")
        return users

would become that instead:

    @app.get("/users")
    def get_users(pool = Depends[get_db_pool]):
        with pool.get_conn() as conn:
            users = conn.execute("SELECT * FROM users")
        return users

But I still need enough connections in the pool to handle all concurrent requests, no?

I might be outing myself as a noob here, but... what is the (better) alternative?

I am not a mobile dev :D

I am aware that NAT is often used in corporate networks, but it does not automatically make any more sense there - the isolation is achieved by the firewall, not by NAT.

NAT (address or port translation) and a firewall (allowing traffic from/to those addresses or ports) are orthogonal concepts.

You can do NAT on IPv6, if you so desire.

It _should_ make no difference whether any adversary knows "what's behind a NAT", because it is your firewalls job to block any unwanted traffic.

Relying on "nobody knows what is inside our network so it can't be attacked" is not a viable strategy.

NAT is a crutch to circumvent the problem of "there are not enough addresses for each device".

I _assume_ you are referring to a default deny inbound firewall (so that devices are not reachable from the outside), but these are very different, completely orthogonal concerns (and independent of the IP version in use).

I am not sure this approach can take you very far.

In my experience, CC makes it very very easy to _add_ things, resulting in much more code / features.

CC can obviously read/understand a codebase much faster than we do, but this also has a limit (how much context we can feed into it) - I think your approch is in essence a bet that future models' ability to read/understand code (size of context) improves as fast or faster than the current models' ability to create new code.

I wondered about this as well.

OTOH, consider that in the "pick the majority from 3 CPUs" approach that seems to have been used in earlier missions (as mentioned in the article) would fail the same way if two CPUs compute the same erroneous result.

While I agree in principle, as of now the latest commit to the pyaes repo and its latest release to pypi are from 2017...

> `NonZeroU32::saturating_add(self, other: u32)` is able to return `NonZeroU32` though!

I was confused at first how that could work, but then I realized that of course, with _unsigned_ integers this works fine because you cannot add a negative number...