It’s rare that the business would give them the slack to be able to, usually there’s plenty of intent
It’s rare that the business would give them the slack to be able to, usually there’s plenty of intent
Not less standardized so much as when the only cooling loops were custom ones and not AIO
That looks like something that could use some Democracy
I thought that was Harambe. Or was he the first sign of deviation?
Can’t imagine how this could be perceived as anything but retaliation for the EU daring to attempt to regulate Apple
Idk, isn’t something like OKC like… literally the opposite use case from what ActivityPub/The Fediverse was built to solve?
Won’t somebody please think of the shareholders
A lot of risk narcing on someone irl
I would imagine a production version of this would have predefined cut lines to pull a chunk out for working on stuff in or under the foundation
Well, so much for that
This account lacks commitment to the bit
male’); DROP TABLE Gender;–
There was one just a few weeks ago with Helldivers 2 and requiring PSN accounts on pc even if you don’t live in a country with PSN
I love how the Oreilly books became the gold standard for covers for this sort of thing.
The only change I’ve seen in this regard is a dramatic reduction in people’s willingness to tolerate these people. They’ve always been here and always been like this, but we as a society used to just let them have their way to make them go away.
So I see articles like this as being nothing but good news.
I have used this software for… A decade? And never knew it had a search feature
The ability to selectively respond to DNS requests is integral to the function of DNS. The only real issue here is that there isn’t a standard response code indicating the reason for not returning the record like there is in http
Peering isn’t Sender Pays, Peering is “I’ll carry your traffic if you’ll carry mine”, with the understanding that when there’s an imbalance in one direction or another that an exchange of some sort is had, be it dollars, bandwidth limits, or similar. In this case, where C interconnects with A which interconnects with B, if C’s traffic is so substantial that it’s saturating the crosslink between A and B, A would need to evaluate whether their peering agreement with C means that C needs to be paying for the network upgrade, or if there’s enough traffic moving from A’s network into C’s to offset that, and that the interconnect between A and B is the root issue. In your example, rather than paying more into ISPs and, essentially, indirectly funding US network backbone infrastructure upgrades across the board, they solved their problem with cache servers that they handed out like candy to avoid their costs to C sky rocketing. G solved this problem by buying a bunch of dark fiber which was laid on spec by contractors and started peering directly with the Tier 1 providers, dramatically reducing their cost delta.
Where Korea’s system differs is that in traditional Tier 1 peering, as I understand it, T’s ISP (call them P) should be using some of the money they get from T to pay Q and R for the excess traffic of their customer, but instead Q and R were, per the government, allowed to also charge T for delivery of their packets, resulting in T having to pay both on the up and downlink side, charging them twice for the same bit. T, rather than attempt what G did, told Korea to pound sand and exited the market.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.