Agree with the spirit of the argument, but I disagree about the bad design. BCrypt has its trade-offs, you are expected to know how to use it when using it, specially if by choice.
It's like complaining about how dangerous an axe is because it's super sharp. You don't complain, you just don't grab the blade section, you grab it by the handle. And
Recently I stumbled upon a behavior of Rust app that uses axum web framework that took me some time to understand. Imagine setting up an async handler in Axum, only to find it mysteriously halting mid-execution. Here’s what happened when I encountered this timeout behavior and how to handle it effectively...
> which is why I asked for his credentials on medicine and ethics, . In the absence of such credentials a rigorous essay on the matter would also have been sufficient
Who made you the arbitrar of such things? You come across as someone engaging in bad faith.
There's a wealth of pre existing discussion on the ethics of trials and many many places about the globe that conduct trials, paid trials even. (eg: https://trials.linear.org.au/)
It's not difficult to access ethical philosphers discussing the matter, nor is it difficult to read essays by practicing epidemiologists and others.
Do you have a specific problem with paid clinical trials of novel vaccines?
Nobody should take Dow Jones Industrial Average seriously. It's only relevant because it's been around for 139 years. It only tracks arbitrarily selected 30 large companies and it's not even weighted by market cap.
It was made this way because 139 years ago we didn't have computers and someone had to manually calculate the average.
> As for you, for your ludicrously ignorant suggestion that swearing with the name of Christ cannot be a sin in Christian theology
You clearly didn't read. I explicitly listed it as a sin rather than blasphemy.
In regard to the Holy Spirit you bring up, I am much closer to channeling an aspect of it than you are:
John 16:8-9, JFC words in regard to the Holy Spirit:
> “When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me.”
You are clearly in the wrong here. Feel free to ignore your savior's words about whether it is blasphemy to take his name in vain.
But to continue to ignore the fact you're doing it now that it's pointed out is not just a sin against your savior, it's actual blasphemy against the holy spirit.
Matthew 12:31-32:
> “There’s nothing done or said that can’t be forgiven. But if you deliberately persist in your slanders against God’s Spirit, you are repudiating the very One who forgives. If you reject the Son of Man out of some misunderstanding, the Holy Spirit can forgive you, but when you reject the Holy Spirit, you’re sawing off the branch on which you’re sitting, severing by your own perversity all connection with the One who forgives.”
If you would judge others souls' as past any redemption for the words they speak about your savior, you are slandering God's Spirit. Continuing THIS behavior knowingly after it's pointed out to you is what your own religion says will damn you forever.
Please, sir, I worry for your soul here.
Unless, of course, what you actually care about here is your own sense of righteousness. In which case you're not truly religious, you're just conceited and use religion to inflate your sense of superiority.
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture given by Dr. Sacks circa 1988. He was a resident speaker for the University of California campuses and had come to UCSC to talk about Awakenings and other topics. He was such a sensitive, kind, gentle person.
It was a privilege to simply be in the audience and the audience was very small. For some reason students didn't take advantage of the opportunity, right in front of them, to come and see him speak. Baffling.
When I saw him, he was in his mid-fifties and the picture of an English academic doctor/professor. It is a kick to see what he looked like in 1961. That BMW he's sitting on is a classic.
The world lost a very special person when he died in 2015.
I'm a bit annoyed that we could stop this cold with a vaccine that sorta already exists, but didn't because we thought it was low-risk. It might be, or it might be a repeat of the big nothing that was H1N1 in 2009, but flu shots are cheap, so I'd rather pay $50 and not take the risk.
I don't know how long ago that was, but I've been a Pixelmator user for at least a few years, and it's leaps and bounds ahead of where it was when I started with it. Coupled with Photomater -- its cousin app -- they're certainly starting to give Photoshop a real run for its money in many ways. Of course, not all ways, at least not yet, but I have personally used it for everything from photo touchups to marketing collateral to art elements later incorporated in a range of things including print layouts and videos. Once in a while I bump my head on a missing or incomplete feature that I was surprised to find not yet implemented, but its getting rarer by the month.
I can’t find the original article, but Derek Lowe (famously of the Things I Won’t Work With column about exciting chemistry) published a series of articles on the topic around 2021 - 2022.
Ah, but now we get back to Step Four. As Neubert says, "Welcome to the bottleneck!" Turning a mixture of mRNA and a set of lipids into a well-defined mix of solid nanoparticles with consistent mRNA encapsulation, well, that's the hard part. Moderna appears to be doing this step in-house, although details are scarce, and Pfizer/BioNTech seems to be doing this in Kalamazoo, MI and probably in Europe as well. Everyone is almost certainly having to use some sort of specially-built microfluidics device to get this to happen - I would be extremely surprised to find that it would be feasible without such technology. Microfluidics (a hot area of research for some years now) involves liquid flow through very small channels, allowing for precise mixing and timing on a very small scale. Liquids behave quite differently on that scale than they do when you pour them out of drums or pump them into reactors (which is what we're used to in more traditional drug manufacturing). That's the whole idea. My own guess as to what such a Vaccine Machine involves is a large number of very small reaction chambers, running in parallel, that have equally small and very precisely controlled flows of the mRNA and the various lipid components heading into them. You will have to control the flow rates, the concentrations, the temperature, and who knows what else, and you can be sure that the channel sizes and the size and shape of the mixing chambers are critical as well.
> Still more time passed and then came the depression. I found myself increasingly demotivated in all aspects of my life. I could hardly even muster the energy to play video games (my usual haunt). Some evenings I would literally sit and stare at a wall. My sleep went to shit.
I'm sorry for that. I went through something similar and I managed to bounce back up but it took longer than I anticipated. Years, not months.
Okta's business model is literally authentication, encryption of user data, and safeguarding that data. Nothing more.
And each of those have been breached multiple times, always demonstrating that they were incompetent at implementing those because they didn't understand basic mechanisms and good practices behind it.
This, again, shows how incompetent they are, not understanding _when_ to use bcrypt and when not. It's not like the 72 bytes limitation isn't documented on the internet. Past misuse incidents are all over the place, and it's even part of basic beginner-level online CTFs.
Which would be okay if Okta were, say, Oracle or another company that is too old to change their stuff. But Okta specifically claims to be good at this, it's their business model.
Why do customers trust this company? Can somebody explain this to me?
Because since the lapsus kid happened, I can't come up with any reasons anymore.
I wasn't able to get a response from Proofpoint directly but by complaining to Icloud support I was able to get forwarded to an individual at Proofpoint and he got me setup. Proofpoint does not care about you if you are not a customer. So you have to harass Proofpoint's customers and if they care about getting your emails they will help you out.
I think the process took 2 weeks.
EDIT: I wish there was a more professional/straightforward way
More and more, we're finding colorectal has very strong genetic correlations.
It's not as strong as Huntington's or BRCA, but akin to carpel-tunnel with repetitive hand motions or melanoma with UV exposure, a diet that's "fine" for most, turns out to be a "killer" for a minority.
Certainly I can see the appeal of implementing control in the silicon I own rather than buying a vendor's chip and having to deal with their supply chain, their sales team, their space claim on my board, etc.
Late response, but how are they irrelevant they're 63rd give or take on the Fortune 100 and they're growing just as much as any other company in that size range. They're just not relevant to the average Joe because they don't really make products for us. They make products for other fortune 500 companies.
Do you think the US flip made a meaningful difference (presuming you did it for US customer/investor access)? Lucanet is EU, so maybe it complicated it in the end
Can't believe the answers you're getting. The answer's a big fat NO. If you find yourself in that situation, there's something very incorrect with your design.
> The only good comparison is to judge a variety of real world programs compiled for each architecture, and run them.
I'm guessing that you don't realize that you are describing SPEC?
It's been around since the days when every workstation vendor had their own bespoke CPU design and it literally takes hours to run the full set of workloads.
From the same page linked above:
> SPEC CPU 2017 is a series of standardized tests used to probe the overall performance between different systems, different architectures, different microarchitectures, and setups. The code has to be compiled, and then the results can be submitted to an online database for comparison. It covers a range of integer and floating point workloads, and can be very optimized for each CPU, so it is important to check how the benchmarks are being compiled and run.
No, rainbow tables are hash-input specific. The salt prevents only a pre-computed table if it's a secret value. Usernames aren't normally part of the hash input because they're assumed-public knowledge.
You can test this for yourself by creating a user account, then editing the master password database and manually changing the username without recalculating the password hash. The password will still work. If the username was part of the hash input, the password would fail.
It's like complaining about how dangerous an axe is because it's super sharp. You don't complain, you just don't grab the blade section, you grab it by the handle. And