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

That generally falls to the International Telecommunication Union globally, as a satellite without a radio is basically junk.

Then maybe the 4(+) countries that can field anti sat weapons beyond that.


I understand you may want it to fall to the UN, but to the extent that it does it is merely a courtesy.

If someone wants to launch satellites with a radio violating every ITU regulation there is, unless someone is going to knock on their door with a gun, it doesn't mean squat. The buck stops at your nation's capital - if they're okay with what you're doing, you can do it. Everything else is just diplomatic window dressing and doesn't really mean anything at the end of the day.


For anyone interested in current data like this, Jonathan McDowell maintains GCAT which is a General Catalog of Artificial Space Objects (and does so fastidiously).

https://www.planet4589.org/space/gcat/index.html

Be warned if you planning to ingest this dataset, the dates are fun =)


Toms Hardware usually includes a "Sustained Write Performance and Cache Recovery" test

The test measures the write cache speed and the time to the fall to the native NAND write speed. There are usually irregularities in the sustained write speeds as well.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd-black-sn850x-ssd-rev...

The other test I've seen is based on writing and using up free space, SSD performance can drop off as the free space fills up and garbage collection efficiency goes down. I think this impacts random writes particularly

In the enterprise space, drives tend to keep more over provisioned NAND free to maintain more consistent performance. Very early on the SSD timeline, it was advisable to only allocate 80% of consumer drives if you were using them outside of desktops and expected the workload to fill them.


A playright-mcp server, or any bidi browser automation, should be equally capable of discovering/injecting and calling the same client JS exposed MCP-B site API?

It's like an OpenAPI definition but for JS/MCP? (outside of the extension to interact with that definition)


Sure they can inject clients, but that's really only beneficials for developers. doing it via browser extension means regular people can use it.

> It's like an OpenAPI definition but for JS/MCP?

Sortof. It's a true MCP server which you can use to expose existing (or new functionality on your webapp to the client)


50% of that is spam that is blocked. At least 50% of the rest is spamish but not spam spam.

So don't feel too overwhelmed!


But is it spam spam spam spam?



Thank you!


What are the advantages to pljs over plv8? I thought the context creation would have been the big one, but it doesn't appear so in the current benchmarks.

How did the project weigh the intermittent updates of bellard quickjs and the community fork quickjs-ng?


I too was surprised about the slower startup and am planning on spending a lot of time in the quickjs repo to try to improve it. Thankfully most use cases use a connection pooler, which removes startup costs from the equation, leaving conversion speed much more important. I was able to speed up conversion of jsonb by writing a custom conversion from jsonb to quickjs and back, but feel there is still a lot of room for improvements.

As for quickjs vs quickjs-ng: ng is a fantastic project and I’m really hoping it pulls an egcs and ends up canonical, but when this project was started, it did not exist, so quickjs was chosen as the starting point. As for why it has not been adopted yet by this project, it comes down to a few things that helped make the decision:

  * quickjs is still having releases
  * as learned from plv8, when there are constant changes it becomes much harder to maintain, so a steady target is easier to deal with (this is constantly being evaluated)
  * the build system change from make to cmake adds friction to Postgres embedding, I already have to patch quickjs, and would need more complicated patches for quickjs-ng. I have a good working relationship with Ben Noordhuis, but it’s still a source of friction that isn’t needed now.
As things change, everything will be re-evaluated, but for now quickjs itself works great.


Yeah...

    [Captures]
    csrf_token: xpath "normalize-space(//meta[@name='_csrf_token']/@content)"
The use the name with mustaches

    {{csrf_token}}
- https://hurl.dev/docs/capturing-response.html


i'm going to definitely give this a try. looks good


What's the motive "to gain trust and encourage users to use AI on WhatsApp"? Meta aren't a charity. You have to question their motives because their motive is to extract value out of their users who don't pay for a service, and I would say that whatsapp has proven to be a harder place to extract that value than their other ventures.

btw whatsapp implemented the signal protocol around 2016.


"motive is to extract value out of their users who don't pay for a service" that is called a business.

if you find something deceitful in the business practice, that should certainly be called out and even prosecuted. I don't see why an effort to improve privacy has to get a skeptical treatment, because big business bad bla bla


Privacy was reduced from where it already stood by the introduction of an AI assistant to an E2E messaging app.

Had they not included it in the first place they would then not have to 'improve privacy' by reworking the AI.

I agree with OP and am highly sceptical of Meta's motives.


You would be correct to be skeptical when they introduced AI into conversations, which btw is opt-in.


The headers are seen by the monster-in-the-middle CDN.

It's obfuscation at best. I'm not sure the encrypted traffic will look particularly php-ish for example. Compressed formats might look vaguely passable.

I can't see any stenography code or libraries in the repo.


yeah if the CDN is not trusted this tool won’t help but then little would


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

Search: