mattashii

How can you use the same signer when the signer's keys are lost?

Or, if the signer's keys are compromised, how do you switch to a non-compromised signer without alarms triggering?

The problem is almost exactly the same as one with a delegated CA -- if the CA keys are compromised, you have to re-issue all certs. When the client pins the CA key then the chain of trust is permanently broken.

> The browser would be able to take policy of simply never trust a certificate whose signer has changed

This assumes that the signer's keys can't be compromised, and re-introduces the issues of key pinning that the WebPKI community has been pushing very hard to eliminate from its dependents. I don't think it's a workable solution.

The accused was found guilty, and this looks like it was a low hanging fruit for the defense to get the sentencing reverted.

> Having secondary indexes point the primary key enables things like undo logging

That's neither here nor there. Heap-oriented tables can have undo logging, too; and index-oriented tables don't strictly require undo logging.

It's just that you're much more likely to want something like undo logging for index-oriented tables, because maintaining uniqueness for rows that are not in-place updated in the index becomes very expensive as more and more versions of the same key value may need to be checked for visibility and liveness, and removing old deleted versions becomes a maintenance hassle, too. It can be done without undo logging, but apparently that wasn't a sufficiently robust (or performant) design.

Only in the worst case when the plans are equivalent: If one plan is significantly faster, then it'll finish first, and the loser can get canceled before it finishes.

That's fair criticism. The deeper reason why it's not a constitution is because it's not the cornerstone of legal, moral, and existential rights of the signatory constituent countries. These countries each have their own constitution that they are beholden to, with no higher authority to fall back to.

The Treaty of Maastricht (and later, Lisbon) can't be guaranteed to have precedence when called upon if they conflict with the constituent countries' constitution(s), and all legislation covered under the treaties must be implemented separately and completely as locally applicable laws before going into effect. The EU regulations generally prescribe a deadline for implementing such regulations, but a country could (and sometimes does, see e.g. Hungary under Orban) break its obligations under the Treaty and ignore or never implement the agreed-upon regulations, and the EU would be unable to do much to enforce its regulations.

Nope, it doesn't. It's current legal basis is a series of treaties, the attempt to create a constitution failed when in 2005 the various countries' local referenda on supporting an EU constitution failed to garner the required support. FRA' referendum failed 45-55, and NLD's consultative referendum on June 1 also gave a solid "no" (38.5% yes vs 61.5% no).

Assuming a given fixed key size, where does RSA need non-fixed-width arithmatic? AFAIK you can do all RSA maths with registers just double as wide as the key, no variable width anything required there. And I don't think that this is much different from ECC maths, apart from ECC's keys just being way less wide for an approximately equivalent security level.

Moving hot air around with a fan in a closed car will save dogs nor kids from overheating.

Whilst they may provide a strong signal, I wouldn't call it a guarantee. If I wanted to avoid vibe-coded contributions I might add such files, but with instructions for the agents that they're not allowed to read or touch any of the files in the repository.

I don't think it's that different from pointing out that registering and/or operating a company in e.g. Delaware or Texas is a very different experience from doing so in New York.

If the status column changes, and an index depends on the contents of that status column (be it by referencing it in its columns, or in the index's WHERE filter) then an update of the status column will prevent the HOT optimization from being applied.