Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | account42's comments login

Any review with referral links is not worth the electrons used to show it on your screen.

SNI doesn't expose headers and request paths.

And as a result .tv domains are not exactly trusted and can't be used for all the things reputable domains can be used for.

Which is the only proper response to unwelcome military aircraft.

Cleaning up in this context means figuring out what parts of the code they actually own and removing/replacing the parts they don't.

The difference is higher pixel densities and being able to have subpixel dithering with msaa buffers.

This is only a problem if you naively undersample the normal maps in your fragment shader. No AA algorithm can can generate a high quality result from undersampled lighting calculations.

For normal maps specifically, you can preserve lost information from downsampled normal maps as roughness: https://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_...

MSAA also doesn't require you to have only one color sample for each pixel but this can be varied per draw call (at least for desktop GPUs) - effectively allowing you to supersample some objects when needed.


The point is to have a site that is not just going to be deleted because some permanently only jerk thinks Widgets aren't noteworthy enough.

Would frequent rotation be reasonable for S/MIME certs though?

Once per year or less. Remember to decrypt messages, you need to keep your old certificates/keys around. You can request a new certificate with the same key but i'm not sure that's a good safety practice.

There's nothing specifically that says S/MIME certs would need to have the same 90-day expiration date, but even if they did, I'm making a basic assumption that if there were a standardised, free API to issue S/MIME certs, major email clients would build-in a client to request a certificate - heck it might even prompt major email providers to offer their own solutions for certs, to compete with alternatives that supported using LE certs.

According to that article Trustico wanted the certs revoked and intentionally send the keys to DigiCert in order to get them to act. While they still shouldn't have had those keys in the first place it sounds like the "trump card" worked here.

At the time my guess was that Trustico thought if the certificates have to be revoked they get their money back, and I can't imagine DigiCert's contracts are bad enough that a customer can get their money back if the customer screws up, but I have not read the contract.

The claims from Trustico are very silly. They want their customers to believe everything is fine, and yet the only possible way for this event to even occur is that Trustico are at best incompetent. To me this seems like one of those Gerald Ratner things where you make it clear that your product is garbage and so, usually the result is that your customers won't buy it because if they believe you it's garbage and if they don't believe you they won't want your product anyway - but whereas Ratner more or less destroyed a successful business, Trustico is still going.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: