Really depends on what you expect for 1 Euro. A single CPU core of an Intel Xenon Gold 6230R isn't much but it handles small loads very well. 1 GB memory is okayish. 10 GB SSD? Meh. A dedicated IPv4 address? That's hot! The uptime is flawless and it's fine to host or forward requests and serve as VPN gateway for my personal stuff or host a few small services. For 1 Euro/month it's a good offer. I used it to encode videos for months. No complaints or something from them.
But according to Reddit, once you get into trouble, the support is the biggest weakness. I'm just parroting what other people probably also parroted.
If I'm reading this correctly, this is a library for use within a browser, in which case the answer is that this makes it easier to live within the constraints of the browser, which has arguably the strangest "multitasking" support anywhere, what with all the constraints it had to satisfy to be added in to an architecture already 15 years old at that point.
I'm a Clojure dev so I really like fast edit-compile cycles. Note, Ansible will happily take in JSON, so you can take your favorite language and write all the playbooks in that language. Just generate the playbooks on the fly (ie. genearte JSON not yaml) and shell out to ansible to run it. So you have all the features of ansible available but can arbitrarily build up your playbooks in your favorite language.
in both Chrome (62) and Firefox (58). The c-style for is very lightly faster in FF (not Chrome) but it's 767 ops/s to 725 ops/s so not exactly brain-breaking (chrome is at 454 and 452).
Safari (11) is the only one where map is a fair bit slower than c-style (420 to 377).
In all cases, both the clever map and for..of are slower than the naive map, though the magnitude varies Chrome yields very little difference but Firefox and Safari dislike for..of and like "clever map" even less.
Kind of hackish, but you can open it up in a browser and look at the console for the run times.
Basically, the clever code is generally worse, and the arrow versus for loop in Firefox and Safari are similar. But in Chrome, the for loop is quicker; it was far more noticeable in node than in chrome. One quirk of chrome is that the first time the for loop is run, it seems to take longer than subsequent runs and I am not sure why that is. I tried moving around initialization stuff and it did not seem to make any differences.
I'm a big fan of spaced repetition. From a mathematical standpoint it's also a very interesting question: You have your forgetting curve and which gives you the probability that you still remember the association. I think there is still some rooms for improvements around there. For instance, I'm not sure if the big plays in the area adjust the forgetting curve for each individual user after they have enough data points.
Shameless plug:
I actually just developed a new spaced repetition platform the last few years. I'm not official launched but it's online and works. If anybody is interested in taking part of the beta testing, email is in my profile.
faulty wiring in the cockpit after the entertainment system started to overheat. electronic device don't start to do arc wiring with a portscan. Stop spreading bad info.
Even if in any other dimension it can be possible, it's the responsability of who design the system for protect against this.
Agree with the last line 100% - although the same argument can just as easily be applied to any and all systems in any and all arenas. The fact that the potential exists leaves a margin for error, and a window for trouble, which is what the post is about. If the potential for failure in a system is there, it needs to be addressed and the effects nullified or mitigated.
I agree it's not likely, but there can be some rare cascading scenarios. Like pilots may update electronic flight bag data via an onboard network which is separate from the entertainment network...but shares bandwidth with the same satellite transciever/antenna. Your port scan hogs the bandwidth somehow, resulting in somewhat less fresh data for tarmac conditions, etc. It's not likely, but it's possible.
You don't have to go any further than the Wikipedia article the previous commenter provided to see that no evidence has been provided for how sending packets to an IFE could take down a plane.
