I think it would actually be (pseudo-)decentralized and you'd have to mine a blockchain node containing each domain, where its creators will have reserved at least 10% of its node pool to make sure they became billionaires if it took off.
You’re right that it would run on a block chain, but that fact would primarily exist to power some marketing. Everybody would end up interacting with it through a single centralized web site and API because it’s the only usable way to get it to work.
What would be the next better feature for a plug? It seems USB-C has it all except for being expensive on the port side with the muxers. Anything different would require tossing a bunch of still useful things. It supports fast charging and good data rates.
That's the entire problem though, isn't it? Now we'll never know.
The one thing I can think of off the top of my head is some sort of magnetic connection similar to macbook chargers to prevent damage when the cord gets pulled out. (Also I would like the USB-3 standard to not suck, but that's never happening and doesn't relate to the physical hardware anyways)
> That's the entire problem though, isn't it? Now we'll never know.
There are definitely a lot of harmful regulation, but this one is amazing with close to no downsides. For one, there are magnetic adapters for everything nowadays, including USB-C ports so you can have your cake and eat it too. Second is the environmental impact of the old charger ecosystem. I lost count of how many cables and chargers I have that are now trash^1. Third one is that historically standardizing interfaces was great for innovation.
^1: Here is the various USB e-waste that I have - usb micro C (2 separate types with same name), micro usb super speed (this one is particularly cursed), mini-usb types A and B, and normal USB type A and type B.
> Here is the various USB e-waste that I have - usb micro C (2 separate types with same name), micro usb super speed (this one is particularly cursed), mini-usb types A and B, and normal USB type A and type B.
Catch just two more and you can challenge the USB trainer in Viridian City!
The protocol was flawed in its design in that it does not standardize or communicate the capabilities of the cable. How do I know whether it’s charging only, data, or thunderbolt? No standard way to understand this
I saw cuneiform tablets over at the Penn Museum. The text was a lot tighter than what is on these tablets. Still a really neat concept, and it's neat that you can actually read it.
Tbh really curious if these will date to our era and confuse a lot of archaeologists later.
I saw a tweet that said, "2000 years from now nobody will know the difference between a booty call and a butt dial, and this is why the Bible is hard for us to understand." So yes, this very well could confuse archeologists in the future and I'm here for it!
If you were at the Penn Museum, you were looking at tablets mostly written in Akkadian and Sumerian cuneiform. Those languages are written in a mostly syllabic cuneiform system. These tablets are English written in the Old Persian cuneiform alphabet. The Old Persian alphabet, being an alphabet, has a smaller number of simpler signs than you'd see in Akkadian and Sumerian, which require hundreds of different signs that are generally more elaborate.
I can't find where I thought I read this. I'm assuming I must have seen a transcript of this speech, once? Regardless, I'm fairly confident this is what I was remembering. Thanks!
And yet there’s plenty of adult coloring books made by a human out there if you’re willing to go to a brick and mortar shop. Got a super cool one from dick blicks, with a lot of underwater scenes. Also paper quality is important. I can’t imagine getting as far as I did in mine if it was newspaper
That’s because those are not personalized. The economy of scale allows for artists to make generic coloring book with high quality art, but it’s expensive for artists to create (and customers to buy) custom made coloring books personalized for the customers photos.
I think merging two requests opens up whole can of worms. 200+403 merged translates to 206? There is also content length merging. Wondering what would the rest of the headers translates to. If I respond with a header saying that the stream is EOF in the second call, would that be preserved.
Should it? You can return a partial result for the request, there's no reason it couldn't be a subset of a previous partial request. Why is the browser required to make a network request at all when it can serve a valid (but incomplete) response out of the cache? There's space for argument for what the "best" way to handle this is, but I have a hard time seeing a valid response as "incorrect" or a "bug".
Honestly, this genre of "big tech company refused to fix my very obscure edge case and that confirms all my priors about them" post is getting a little tiresome. There are like three of them coming through the front page every day.
Whether it should or not depends on whether you understand a 403 as a refusal to let you do the given method against the given resource at all, or as a refusal to do this one specific request. The HTTP spec (as I’ve just learned) does support the narrower interpretation if the server wishes it: the description for 403 is just that “[t]he server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it”, with no implications regarding other requests for this resource.
Again, it's a range request though. What if the browser simply didn't send a network request at all and just synchronously returned the partial result from the cache. You agree that would be correct (if arguably not very useful), right? The point is that the 403 isn't required to be seen, at all. You can't require the browser return a value that the browser doesn't know about.
It's a cache consistency bug at its root. The value was there, and now it's not. The reporter says "the browser is responsible for cache coherency" (call this the "MESI camp"). The Chrome folks say "the app is responsible for cache coherency" (the "unsnooped incoherent" gang). Neither is wrong. And the problem remains obscure regardless.
I'm not sure Chrome's current caching behavior is helpful because the second response does not indicate which part of the data is returned. So, the application has no choice but to discard the data.
But thank you for your comments. This helped me to crystalize why I think this is a bug.
Yeah, if there's no way to tell from the request which range has actually been returned that seems like a deal-breaker. The spec’s allowance for a partial response is explicitly motivated by the response being self-describing, and if after Chrome’s creative reinterpretation it is not, then it’s not clear what the client could even do.
There's no clear way to define "correct" in this case regardless. The whole premise behind a range request is that the data is immutable (because otherwise it wouldn't make sense to be able to fetch it piecewise), and it's mutating here by disappearing! What are you supposed to do, really? The answer is always going to be app-dependent, the browser can't get it right because the server is being obtuse and confusing.
When we handle this in the hardware world it's via algorithms that know about the mutability of the cached data and operate on top of primitives like "flush" and "invalidate" that can restore the inconsistent memory system to a known state. HTTP didn't spec that stuff, but the closest analog is "fetch it again", which is exactly what the suggested workaround is in the bug.
> Honestly, this genre of "big tech company refused to fix my very obscure edge case and that confirms all my priors about them" post is getting a little tiresome.
Ahh, let's just wait for the startup to fix it then.
This is the same dumb problem as always. Are you who you say you are and are you allowed to do such and such action?
There’s existing solutions but everything is its own special snowflake. Oauth is a lie, sso sometimes works. But sso doesn’t provide a differentiation between my employee and their broken script.
Considering how high stress the job is they definitely should have a 32 hour work week. Strange hours with lots of complicated bits.
And a union is about more than just workers rights it's about ensuring worker safety. Workers must be able to advocate for safety within their jobs and to ensure the best end result for a customer.
