Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jiveturkey's commentslogin


in this context now the whole conversation made more sense

> DACs are copper, and they're happy.

Well come on. GP really means category cable (twisted pair copper) is not happy at 10Gb distribution lengths (so-called horizontal cabling, although in a home it may span multiple floors without IDFs). That's kind of obvious context.

DACs are not category cable; they are twinax, short, and bulky.


Still, it is useful to mention.

If PoE required: use copper twisted pair.

If both sides SFP+ (preferred, but not always possible):

Physical presence: DAC (very cheap).

Not physical presence (e.g. has to go through wall, floor, or longer distance): fiber (OM3 are very cheap but apparently the color being translucent is regarded as nice).

Else: copper twisted pair.

I've applied this on my (rental) house. One server has a 10 gbit copper twisted pair NIC because it also has a PCIe switch with M.2 storage on the same physical PCIe board. Two WLAN APs are powered by switch in fusebox. The Unifi Protect appliance is also powered by twisted pair copper. But I was also able to get an OM3 fiber through the same wall hole.

And always terminate at walls. So if a cable in house goes bad, the one through the wall or the socket is unaffected. Works with both fiber and twisted pair copper.

You can already notice it in this post. DAC barely is part of the content. It is fire and forget, no caveats, lowest latency and lowest power usage. So it tends to be forgotten, but a DAC cable is useful if both devices got physical (vicinity) presence. An alternative could be networking over TB.


JWTs can do that (delegate) and such capability is already well defined.

Maybe I stated it wrong. Macaroons have the ability to attenuate the restrictions _without_ contacting the auth server, which makes it IMO fit for restricting and attenuating as much as you want, without much cost.

If I need a roundtrip to the auth server to attenuate, I am not necessarily going to do it as often.


Most token formats delegate. Macaroons support attenuation, confinement, and embedded third-party claims, none of which are JWT capabilities.

> TL;DR: Don't overthink it, just send a verification email.

pretty bad advice, if taken only as written, without adding more flavor on top.

the major email providers will penalize you if you generate too many undeliverable emails. thus, if you just send a verification email without any pre-validation, it's pretty easy to get into a DoS situation where current/valid users don't get important email sent to them, or that email is significantly delayed, plus incur huge operating cost to resolve the problem.

some form of rate limiting is needed, plus IMHO it's better to use a verifier service or your own heuristic or ML model to test for email validity including valid but fake/spammy/disposable addresses.

sorry, but we are way past the point of being able to have nice things, esp. when we're talking about email.

the "lies" part of the content is great. people do assume all those wrong things. however the TLDR is just wrong, and potentially harmful.


I think the only way to deal with that right now is to hire a company whose job is to deal with it. They'll random-check your outgoing emails are indeed what you say they are, and they maintain a reputation with the big providers for checking it properly.

What pre-validation could you do that would possibly be useful?


entropy check, for one


> the major email providers will penalize you if you generate too many undeliverable emails.

I suspect the rate at which new users may try to create new accounts and type a wrong email address is too low to be noticed by reputation metrics.


there's bad actors that use bots to sign up to websites using bogus data.


Wait! Are you saying that you process new registration attempts without any rate limit, captcha, etc? Because the moment to filter out (or limit) bad actors is before they submit an email address, not through it.


Yeah, good luck with that. Captchas are basically useless in today’s world, so are IP rate limits for anything just a little sophisticated. Of course it helps, but if you think this solves all problems, you live in a dream world.


oooh. i have an original. it doesn't have the 'Collector's Edition' etching. Does that make it a fake?


But the chatbots/aggregators do, and they accept the reports as fact.

As is noted in the conclusion.


> Instead of releasing our results all at once, we're going to focus on one report at a time. This approach both prevents individual examples being overlooked and allows us to illustrate the negative impacts of vibe citing on research quality and public trust.

Not to take away from the actually great reporting here, but what they mean is, This approach allows them to milk it for as many clicks as possible.


why is that? you'd run yt-dlp from the same device you generated the cookies on (with a real browser). yt-dlp will have the bare cookie and also be able to refresh the cookie just like the browser.


There was a secondary sale in April.


There's a newish term for this: RLO, Recurring Liquidity Opportunity. These are tender offers at some recurring interval. Even some companies that have a shorter lifespan (say 7 years) offer this.


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

Search: