justusthane

Oh, also, change “Uptime” to “Availability”

This is a ton of fun! Small suggestions:

    - A way to copy (or better yet, email) a session link so I can switch between devices while maintaining my progress
    - Allow 1 and 2 to function as hotkeys for Allow and Block, so I don't have to move between "a" and "b" for Allow and Block, and then the number keys for the block reason

If I recall they did the exact same thing with the first iPhone that had the camera bump.

The main problem with OP's experience is that the AI response has absolutely nothing to do with the search results and is functioning purely as a chatbot.

Well I'll be. It does seem that the ability to get the subnet mask is present in the beta version of Dart, so hopefully this will be resolved.

Are you sure? That would be a bizarre limitation. It seems much more likely there's something else going on where it's not working

From the linked page:

> When a cycle is started, a wax motor is actuated pushing a pin outward and locking the door. This design has cost, reliability and safety advantages. In moist conditions a wax motor costs less for equivalent reliability than an electromagnetic solenoid or motor latch. It has a predictable passive release delay. If power is lost the door remains briefly locked, designed to be longer than the high speed spin cycle coast-down time, then reliably unlocks as the wax cools.

> I really appreciate this attitude towards this because it recognizes that there are a lot of security teams out there that don't take a nuance view of CVEs

This is true, but also: needless CVEs place a burden even on security teams who do take a nuanced view of CVEs - it requires some amount of effort to evaluate every CVE and determine whether it's applicable or not.

Same. I don't get motion sick, and this made me feel uneasy. It would make my wife motion sick instantly. It's an interesting concept though, and I can see the utility of it.

It's an in-depth post about something neat that someone made. Exactly what I want to read on here.

Not to me, but who knows

The author’s take on this in the Mitigations section makes sense to me:

> Remove the timeout, and a legitimately stuck core hangs the platform on the first SMI. Increase the timeout, and you kill performance on many-core platforms that are forced to quiesce all cores every SMM entry. It's not clear what the best path forward is, or if there is even a path forward at all.

I don't think was unkind, and I think that if you make something public, opinions are always warranted.

When someone says "I nearly had a heart attack," it's _highly_ unlikely that they actually nearly had a heart attack. I don't think the chances are good that anyone actually had a heart attack.