throwasehasdwi

You don't get reliable wall clock time unless you're working in RTOS. In a threaded OS everything in userland is async to an extent. In this school of thought, having to specify that something should be async manually could be seen as a failure of the language.

await/promises/etc mostly exist to solve the problem that JavaScript doesn't have threads so it can't wait for callbacks.

About JavaScript, many other languages have had async/await for a long time. I have no idea why JS made such a huge deal of promises, I guess they're better than the callback hell before. Of course, in most languages using async isn't nearly as important for performance because they have thread pools.

Some interfaces aren't and won't be asynchronous (like Linux file IO) so eventually JS will support proper threads and we can stop talking about how great asynchronous programming is (it isn't).

It's insane that we're still using systems without ECC RAM. As memory shrinks bit errors get progressively more common. The more memory you have the better chance of corruption as well of course.

Literally everything else that holds "data" has been using some form of error correction forever. Hard drives, SSD's, USB flash drives, file systems, databases, even network packets. Even HDMI uses error correction, and how important is momentary pixel corruption on a screen???

It's totally insane that we're not using ECC with such large amounts of RAM built on tiny processes. Its definitely just a cartel artificially maintaining a situation that's bad for everyone not selling server chips.

Probably not but I was thinking either ML or VR could help

Eh, most developers I know are lazy and won't even measure the performance of the thing they're building if it's "good enough". I can't remember the last time any of us fired up a profiler. Optimization is generally hard and un-fun.

On the other hand, developers love to build shiny new stuff more than they like using things that are already there. The "Optimize" part you're talking about is more "reinvent the wheel" in my experience.

Figuring out how to use X new library isn't fun. Building this cool thing that does the same thing but better is a lot of fun! That's why things get overengineered and built for "scale", which is probably mostly what you'r referring to. Instead of taking something off the shelf that would work fine some developers are compelled to build something that can handle the entire traffic of the internet. They don't achieve this by optimizing what's there, they do it by building an enormously complex system for no reason :)

> undermining the success of the CEO search

Travis legally has control of the company just like an owner would. Nobody can "force" him to leave on run his company as certain way. Benchmark is just whining because they can't get their way.

Benchmark agreed to let him have permanent control when they invested, if they didn't want that they shouldn't have signed the contract.

They have nukes and working ICBM's... It's not that hard to put the two together.

Submarine launch is harder and the warheads must be smaller, but ICMB's are already considered unstoppable so it doesn't matter.

Well, North korea has been working on nukes for like 40 years and there hasn't been a war yet so I don't think the US is as eager as you think.

You don't see anything wrong with a madman in a country always on the edge of collapse that's constantly threatening to turn the USA into a crater having nuclear weapons?

Kimmy is over there threatening to bomb out the US and Japan and put everyone's heads on pikes pretty much weekly. I don't recall even our crazy fucker president Trump saying anything remotely close to that.

Whoever authorized the operation decided it was worth the many millions of damage it could do to Juniper.

add/remove is a better UX than the Windows Store even though it's barely been touched for 20 years :)

They are a current feature but not the baseline which means in practice implementations are buggy or non existent. I've had a few nicer routers where I could turn the options on but most clients are not able to connect :( .

I need to be in the baseline standard to get qualified or nobody will implement it.

You can't brute force a nonce offline when you don't know if you answer is right unless you ask the AP. Different protocols than sending hashes where you can tell if your hash is correct just by looking at it.

You are right that the AP couldn't block you without blocking everyone, but since you need to check your answer with the AP for each guess your attack becomes extremely visible. I guess you could still DDOS the AP by sending auth requests faster than it allows but that doesn't hurt the channel any more than barrage jamming which is un-blockable.

It doesn't give you a hash to crack. It reduces your speed of guessing passwords from "how quick can you hash X", which is millions of times per second, to "how many times can I attempt to get in before the access point blocks me".

This major issue with WPA password cracking today is that it can be done "offline". You can pull the handshake out of the air and bang on it as long as you want. It's pretty much the same thing as trying to guess a password from some leaked hashes vs trying to guess a password using the gmail interface.