Joined 15 years ago
This reminds me of a recent issue I had. I had just gotten a new laptop from IT. While picking it up from them, I had generated myself a password, put it in my password manager on my phone, and then entered it twice to set it on the laptop. Everything worked great. But when I got back to my desk, the password didn't work! I tried a bunch of times, watched myself hit each key to eliminate typos, etc.
I went back to IT and they asked me to demonstrate. But this time it worked! I walked back to my desk, thoroughly embarrassed. But a couple hours later I had to log in again and once again could not.
After thinking about it for awhile, I realized that I was typing at IT while standing over a sitting-height desk. Sure enough, typing in that position fixed my issue. I carefully watched what I was doing this time - something about the exact layout of the keyboard and the weird angle I was typing at ensured that I was making a particular typo I typed in that position - just a single letter switched to another, every time. Sure enough, making that one substitution to my intended password got me in.
Yes you can, because speed has units of inverse time and latency has units of time. So it could be correct to say that cutting latency to 1/10 of its original value is equivalent to making it 10x the original speed - that's how inverses work.
Savings are not, to my knowledge, measured in units of inverse dollars.
If we're being pedantic, TGS ("ticket granting server") is the service you get service tickets from. Service tickets are (occasionally) abbreviated ST, as you'd expect. The TGS is a logical part of the KDC, distinguished from the AS which grants TGTs.
FWIW 3.5 billion is not the top estimate, although I'm not sure how to interpret the way the estimate is stated ("annual mortality may be minimally 1.28 billion–3.46 billion or as high as 1.92 billion–5.19 billion"). What does it mean to have a range for each end of the range? The author only quotes the absolute lowest number from the study in press about it (see https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/environment-science/3-5-mil...), but maybe is just preferring to be conservative.
Do you have a citation for this? Are you comparing North American cat deaths to worldwide building collisions? Estimates I'm seeing of North American center around 600 million, a far cry from deaths due to cats.
This wasn't meaningfully the case prior; the printing press would've just needed more copies of 'l' if they'd dropped the 1s, and letters weren't as significant a portion of the cost of the machine, anyway. And afterwards came computers, which need to distinguish between the characters even if they're displayed the same way.
Also, a trailing dot would indicate the opposite of what we want - we're using single-label domains that only work if we can rely on search suffixes to qualify them.
You can do quite well at this, if you're willing to not restrict yourself to regexes and commit to some amount of hackery. One system I worked on used a simple regex (just what is described here IIRC - assert the existence of an @ sign), plus did an MX check on the domain, plus warned (not errored) if the domain was within 1 or 2 Levenshtein distance of any of a list of most common email domains (yahoo, gmail, etc). Statistically it seems like we saved people a lot of grief with this simple filtering.
Cookies work fine, and are the usual way auth is handled in browsers.
> Secondly, not every client is a browser (my OpenAI / fine tune example is non-browser based).
That's fair. It still seems easier, to me, to save any browser-based clients some work (and avoid writing your own spec) by using existing technologies. In fact, what you described isn't even incompatible with SSE - all you have to do is have the server close the connection every 60 seconds on an otherwise normal SSE connection, and all of your points are covered except for the auth one (I've never actually seen bearer tokens used in a browser context, to be fair - you'd have to allow cookies like every other web app).
