Isn't this limit per client ip, server ip, and server port? (https://stackoverflow.com/a/2332756/303637)

> Pixel 6 will have the most layers of hardware security in any phone**.

> **Based on a count of independent hardware security subsystems and components.

That does not seem like a meaningful measure for security.

Throw it in a zip lock bag for an immediate +1 security layer

From experience with x86: adding more security layers does not inherently make a better design.

Definitely a bit of marketing language to try and make the complexities of security understandable. I think of it as similar to a door with multiple, independent, locking mechanisms.

....and these security levels are irrelevant when the OS manufacture is the worry for data harvesting.....

It makes sense if you think of it as security from you instead of security for you

It would be nice if pure benchmark papers were a thing. Most of the time system papers get accepted for some new idea. The evaluation section is often biased towards the new idea. Independent benchmarks could fix this.

How would you make the button send a request without js and without navigating to another page?

Maybe css to load an image on :active or is there some better way?

Here are two robust techniques that I haven’t seen actually employed in production for maybe fifteen years:

① A submit button or link targeting an iframe which is visually hidden. (Or even don’t hide it. If only seamless iframes had happened, or any other way of auto-resizing an iframe: relevant spec issues are https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/555 and https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1771.)

② A submit button or link to a URL that returns status 204 No Content.

(CSS image loading in any form is not as robust because some clients will have images disabled. background-image is probably (unverified claim!) less robust than pseudoelement content as accessibility modes (like high contrast) are more likely to strip background images, though I’m not sure if they are skipped outright or load and aren’t shown. :active is neither robust nor correct: it doesn’t respond to keyboard activation, and it’s triggered on mouse down rather than mouse up. Little tip here for a thing that people often get wrong: mouse things activate on mouseup, keyboard things on keydown.)

Mhhh, iframes all the way down. Could make a nice experiment.

Yep:

.button:active { background-image: url('/some-reference-thats-actually-a-tracker'); }

I tried following the webdev topic and it's just interaction-baiting bullshit. Like loops vs reduce. Or "offend a webdev with 3 words".

I think implicit conversions were added originally to support Java compatibility without boilerplate code.

It then turned out that they could be used to simulate extension methods, which is probably the main use case for implicit classes in Scala2.

And implicit parameters were probably just the result of trying to make type classes modular.

The CanBuildFrom approach came later than implicit parameters (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1722726/is-the-scala-2-8...).

I don't think i will be much of a problem. Braces are already optional in Scala2 if you only use a single expression. The change just gives you the option to be more consistent and remove braces everywhere.

Scala is one of the smallest typed languages in terms of syntax.

See slide 13: https://www.slideshare.net/Odersky/preparing-for-scala-3#13

With scala 3, syntax has been simplified even more, e.g.:

No more braces necessary. Top level declarations. Extension Methods.

> No more braces necessary

Optional braces seems like a weird feature to me. I would prefer consistently. I think a language should either be "bracey" or not. Just pick one!

I personally wanted to be able to use underscores instead of braces.

Joking? Scala 3 added 20 keywords (14 of them contextual), many of them with entirely new syntactic constructs behind it.

> Scala is one of the smallest typed languages in terms of syntax.

Eh, that slide isn't really worth looking into. None of the languages there have a uniform way to represent the grammar. If you look at the C# and Scala grammars you'll find that the Scala one is highly compacted, whereas the C# grammar is intentionally not compact. They're encoded in different formats.

I think "lots of syntax" means many rules to learn, rather than many characters to type. So this change means even more syntax.

If I rememver correctly, the python plugin for vscode asks me whether I trust the project before running anything. At least that was the case when I last opened a Jupyter notebook in vscode.

Applications don't need generics, but libraries do.

The lack of generics is the reason for a lack of many useful libraries that I miss when writing applications in Go.

Things I missed lately: Sets, maps with arbitrary keys, lists, sorting, removing duplicates, priority queues, parser combinators, list transformation functions (map, filter), transactions.

Some of these exist for Go, but with awkward APIs.

The Go idiom for set is a map with bool values and given that it'll just return false for keys that aren't initialized I really don't see what you're missing compared to having a dedicated type. I'm not sure what your complaint is about maps, lists, or sorting. There are some specialized types you might occasionally want and I miss FP constructs too, but I don't think these are really serious impediments to productivity.