I agree, it looks nice in my opinion. It doesn’t look like the house itself is crooked. It’s just asymmetrical furniture, which I find fun to look at!
I agree, it looks nice in my opinion. It doesn’t look like the house itself is crooked. It’s just asymmetrical furniture, which I find fun to look at!
Well, if
Then we can be quite confident that your connection is indeed encrypted!
And of course, you’re welcome!
If the timestamps line up, maybe Wireshark just doesn’t manage to understand the entire exchange. What could happen is that Wireshark sees the SSH handshake, and after that it might become just encrypted gibberish due to the encryption. In that case the SSH traffic could just show up as “some kind of TCP”.
Do you see an SSH handshake, followed by random crap on the same ports?
(I’m not a Wireshark expert, just an IT guy trying to help!)
TCP is on a lower level than SSH, usually SSH uses TCP as its underlying transport layer. TCP as such is not encrypted, but it can of course be used to transport encrypted data.
Are those packages not part of the same SSH connection according to Wireshark?
It would also be very hard to compete with products that are this mature. Linux, Windows, and macOS have been under development for a long time, with a lot of people. If you create a new OS, people will inevitably compare your new immature product with those mature products. If you had the same resources and time, then maybe your new OS would beat them, but you don’t. So at launch you will have less optimizations, features, security audits, compatibility, etc., and few people would actually consider using your OS.
That is true, but from a human perspective it can still seem non-deterministic! The behaviour of the program as a whole will be deterministic, if all inputs are always the same, in the same order, and without multithreading. On the other hand, a specific function call that is executed multiple times with the same input may occasionally give a different result.
Most programs also have input that changes between executions. Hence you may get the same input record, but at a different place in the execution. Thus you can get a different result for the same record as well.
That exact version will end up making “true” false any time it appears on a line number that is divisible by 10.
During the compilation, “true” would be replaced by that statement and within the statement, “__LINE__” would be replaced by the line number of the current line. So at runtime, you end up witb the line number modulo 10 (%10). In C, something is true if its value is not 0. So for e.g., lines 4, 17, 116, 39, it ends up being true. For line numbers that can be divided by 10, the result is zero, and thus false.
In reality the compiler would optimise that modulo operation away and pre-calculate the result during compilation.
The original version constantly behaves differently at runtime, this version would always give the same result… Unless you change any line and recompile.
The original version is also super likely to be actually true. This version would be false very often. You could reduce the likelihood by increasing the 10, but you can’t make it too high or it will never be triggered.
One downside compared to the original version is that the value of “true” can be 10 different things (anything between 0 and 9), so you would get a lot more weird behaviour since “1 == true” would not always be true.
A slightly more consistent version would be
((__LINE__ % 10) > 0)
Makes sense, you clearly thought about this! From a world-building perspective I do have a follow-up question: 86.4k seconds is our definition of a second, but it is essentially a convention and there is no reason for it. In a society that throws out the hours and minutes, why did they keep our second? It seems like it would have made sense for them to define the day as 100k of some new (slightly smaller) unit. That could have given them 10 “hours” of 100 “minutes” of 100 “seconds”.
Why split the day into 8?
You definitely have a point with base-12 though. If base-10 wasn’t so ingrained already, base-12 would be a very logical choice. You can even count to 12 easily on one hand, using your thumb to keep track of where you are and counting on the segments of each of your 4 other fingers.
You want to translate COBOL to another language? That exists as a commercial product! The complexity is not the syntax though, it is the environment and subsystems surrounding the code. A lot of COBOL is designed for mainframe systems, and emulating a mainframe is complex.
You also end up with code that is still written as if it were COBOL. The syntax for COBOL is the easy part and that is all you can easily replace. Afterwards you’re still stuck with the way of working and mindset, both of which are quite peculiar.
The company I work for recently looked at all of this, and we decided not to translate our code.
It’s not racism of you believe those people were born into a lower caste because of their actions in a previous life. It is their punishment and thus you should treat them like shit!
That’s exactly how I know the French one 😂 It was a very pleasant surprise on a long drive, and we just had to take a short break there!
France also has a removede, but the Swiss Bitsch is actually much closer. Good find!
Wow, is it exactly double?! Nature is amazing! This kind of little details really proves that there is an almighty creator!
/s
I manage a team of about 30 people in IT. Your job is not valued enough, and I know the importance of what you do. Thank you for your work!
You’re absolutely right! USB storage devices are blocked and we don’t have the right to execute arbitrary executables anyway. It is a pretty secure environment.
For me it’s Chrome for work, because we’re not allowed to install anything on our machines :(
With my professional experience in COBOL, I can honestly say I’m not surprised at all!
Are sd card slots cheaper than 128 GB of flash storage chips? I’m not sure, but yes, probably. You would also need to factor in the additional complexity of allowing physical access to the slot, which would take some additional designing and a few more components. The sd card itself will probably be a more expensive and slower than integrated flash storage. By contrast, it is probably extremely easy to just shove some flash storage chips in a phone. Still, I agree that it sounds like a worthwhile tradeoff for me.
It is a hardware failure. Screens are complex and sensitive parts that are exposed to a lot of (ab)use. What is cryptic about that?