Here are some details about this process. Basically, your submission can get a second chance if a moderator thinks it was a good one that everybody missed:
I read the Audiobook version of this book. It presents a narrative of the development of the very early stages of the internet. I enjoyed it. I think it would also have been fine in print or ebook formats. It is not too long and seems to present the events in a mostly linear fashion.
You'll get a great overview of the names, organizations, and machines that were used in this period.
The book is a decent read. Like you said, it linearly presents the companies and people involved, mostly ARPA and BBN. Not a technical book, so don't expect anything in-depth on protocols, more like analogies laypeople can understand.
Excerpt:
To avoid sounding too declarative, he labeled the note “Request for Comments” and sent it out on April 7, 1969. Titled “Host Software,” the note was distributed to the other sites the way all the first Requests for Comments (RFCs) were distributed: in an envelope with the lick of a stamp. RFC Number 1 described in technical terms the basic “handshake” between two computers—how the most elemental connections would be handled. “Request for Comments,” it turned out, was a perfect choice of titles. It sounded at once solicitous and serious. And it stuck.
“When you read RFC 1, you walked away from it with a sense of, ‘Oh, this is a club that I can play in too,’” recalled Brian Reid, later a graduate student at Carnegie-Mellon. “It has rules, but it welcomes other members as long as the members are aware of those rules.” The language of the RFC was warm and welcoming. The idea was to promote cooperation, not ego. The fact that Crocker kept his ego out of the first RFC set the style and inspired others to follow suit in the hundreds of friendly and cooperative RFCs that followed. “It is impossible to underestimate the importance of that,” Reid asserted. “I did not feel excluded by a little core of protocol kings. I felt included by a friendly group of people who recognized that the purpose of networking was to bring everybody in.” For years afterward (and to this day) RFCs have been the principal means of open expression in the computer networking community, the accepted way of recommending, reviewing, and adopting new technical standards.
> "Twenty five years ago, it didn't exist. Today [1998], twenty million people worldwide are surfing the Net."
The scale of the web today is truly staggering. The entirety of Yahoo era internet users would be a single celebrity's Twitter followers now. It's no wonder things felt so much more intimate and real back then. It really was a qualitatively different time and place.
Books with denser technical content get difficult in the audio form, though it's probably a matter of habit―but generally audiobooks are a great way to consume narrative material: I think I got through around thirty books in the past seven months. Walks, shopping and house chores are much more productive on the brain front now.
Pro tip: VLC lets you speed up the audio. 1.3x to 1.5x is no problem with many narrators.
That's what the 'all' option does. It shows all items that made the front page that were submitted on any given day, whether it was on the front page for 2 days straight or for just a few minutes.
Quick note, the existing Let's Encrypt integration does not support Pages. We are working on it, but it's worth noting Pages has multiple modes it can run in.
One is by setting up wildcard domains at the server level, like we have on GitLab.com with gitlab.io. We have an issue open for this, but the primary challenge is that Let's Encrypt requires DNS-01 validation for wildcard certificates, with a new challenge each renewal. That is difficult to automate through our Omnibus package. The issue tracking this work is here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/issues/3342
I suppose they have even less incentive than internet service providers have to implement BCP 38 spoofing protection.
If it made business sense to do this, it would happen. Until then, it probably won't. Perhaps serving millions of robocalls are more profitable than the number of consumers who will totally cancel their telephone service as a result of them.
Pity there isn't a viable class action plaintiff's bar taking on the provider telcos to make the business case. Until then I'm doing what everyone else seems to be diong, blackholing calls pretending to be from my own exchange, and now trying a device on the landline to filter the ringing (a Lynx).
I have spent some time reading about rust in the past but rarely actually used it.
When reading about rust I am constantly bombarded with what I would describe as lazy terminology.
In this case, the same term, `lifetime`, is being used to describe several distinct aspects of a system. Between the link you shared, the "Rust Book" that is available online, the book "Programming Rust", the compiler's error messages, and all the various blog posts, there is a definite lack of clear language. Many of these sources are even inconsistent within themselves.
It seems like the clearest, most agreed usage is that "lifetime" in general is very close to a concept many other languages have, usually called "scope".
The problem starts when eventually all these sources start talking about these things that look like `'a`. Suddenly they're calling `'a` the `lifetime`. That's a poor reuse of the same term.
It appears the compiler's error messages are calling this a `lifetime parameter`. The "Rust Book" at one point calls them `lifetime annotations`. Many sources just continue calling them `lifetimes` over and over again.
It would be nice if someone could come up with very precise language to describe each aspect of the system so that anyone writing about it can communicate clearly.
This problem is not limited to lifetimes at all. As I mentioned above, almost every time I read about rust I'm finding this reuse of terms, misuse of terms, and lack of precision. It's quite frustrating and a major turn off.
> and then using "type" again to refer to generic type parameter T
I was curious enough to grab a nearby textbook on Java. The author very clearly calls these things "type parameters" or "type variables". Imagine trying to write the whole chapter just calling them "types".....
"Your generic type will have two other types T and E and we will fill in Grape as type T and Fred as type E...."
It'd be a disaster! Instead he's used clear language, every single time he refers to one of those things, he uses the specific term. Much better experience.
You could try this libpurple plugin for Mattermost [0]. Should work fine with finch if you want it to live in a terminal or tmux session or something, or else Pidgin or Adium if you want a more GUI look.
At least when using the web interface, you need to delete the domain and then re-add it. I'm not sure if there is an alternate option via an API, never looked into it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10705926