Posts by flayman

Famed software engineer DJB tries Fil-C… and likes what he sees

Re: Not quite ...

Grammar fail. It's the "extreme lack of safety" that is the subject in that sentence.

Is PHP declining? JetBrains says yes. And no

The PHP ecosystem is like a kitchen sink full of dirty dishes. Never again.

Amazon brain drain finally sent AWS down the spout

Re: The initial DNS issue?

"My question is, what was the initial DNS issue."

Probably a BGP misconfiguration. That's usually what it is.

Shared responsibility model

You shouldn't have all your eggs in North Virginia. What the hell? Whatever happened to multi-region, multi-AZ, high availability, fault tolerance? A DNS resolution failure in US-EAST-1 should not bring down half the internet for half a day.

EU starting registration of fingerprints and faces for short-stay foreigners

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

You've got a rotten understanding. Treason is a serious charge. Prove it. Government were prepared to walk away without a deal and tried to force that through Parliament by running out the clock. But Parliament needed to meaningfully approve any deal (or no deal), as the full 11 member Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the prorogation case. Is that the collusion you're referring to? Are you talking about the Benn Act (which of course received royal assent)? If not, then what and whom? Who specifically colluded with Brussels and how? What did that amount to? HMG attempting to sidestep Parliament is closer to treason than what you're talking about, given that the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson's advice to the Queen on prorogation was ultra vires.

It is not universally accepted that in order to be effective, we needed to be able to threaten to walk away. Theresa May said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but secretly she believed that "no deal" would be a disaster, and so nobody really bought it. Wise heads understood that "no deal" was worse for Britain than the rest of the bloc, even though it might be bad for the bloc in some ways. Explain to me what exactly was on the line for the EU if we left without a deal? We're just a puny island of some 60 million on the other side of the North Sea. We export very little and import very much. We punched above our weight when were a member of the EU.

Only a small minority of extremists in the UK were happy with the prospect of WTO trading terms. That is not what the country wanted. A "no deal" Brexit, if that were what the vote had been about, would not have won. Not by a long shot. Don't even try to argue that.

Really, we did the EU a great service in exposing the flaws in the Article 50 process. It's very difficult to negotiate anything when you have no authority and have to get approval from Parliament, according to our constitutional arrangements, though it's better than the process that came before. Brussels were extremely patient while we turned ourselves inside out over what began life as a Conservative party factional dispute. Your "traitors" in Parliament just fought for what they believed was best for the country. I don't know why I bother. You're just another anonymous coward.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

I can assure you that we subjects most certainly are not compelled to serve a monarch or any overlord. We are not peasants in some feudal system. I may be subject to a constitutional monarchy, but I am no servant. Although I did go through school with my hand on my heart pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (and to the republic for which it stands), I did not serve the President of the United States. The President of the United States serves the United States, which is a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least when things are working as they should. I could be conscripted to serve if I were drafted into the military in wartime, from which I would later be discharged if I didn't get myself killed. Allegiance to the state is loyalty and obedience to the laws of the land, not servitude. We've gone off on quite a tangent.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

Yes, I took an affirmation of allegiance too when I was naturalised. I don't serve.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

> So we, in a demonstration of democracy voted to leave the EU. We also expected our government to negotiate a good deal and act in the UK's interests. If they opposed that will and acted in the interests of the EU instead, then pretty much by definition that would have been treasoness.

Reading you more closely, I have more disagreement with your assertions. Take above. Yes, a referendum of that nature is an exercise of pure democracy. Though, as you noted, ours is a representative democracy. And as I noted, the referendum was non-binding. If it had been binding on Parliament, it would not have passed into law. If our government had acted in public view with disapproval of the electorate, no that's not treason. Blair's government did that in 2003. It hurt him in 2005. Labour lost 101 seats off their majority. That's how it works. He didn't invade Iraq without consulting the Queen.

> Which also had some fun constitutional isuses, like if an MP's consituents voted to remain, should the MP then have voted per their consituents?

That's not a constitutional issue at all. MPs vote however they like, subject to party sanctions and the risk of losing the next election. I don't think you really do understand.

> But we get to elect MPs to represent us, form a government and legislate. Then the Lords and judiiciary can kick those laws back, parties can try to stack the decks to prevent that, but eventually proposed legislation gets plonked infront of the Crown who grants Royal Assent.. Them being by definition, Sovereign in the UK.

The government is only part of it. My MP is not part of govenment nor in the governing party. I expect my MP to challenge government or align with them when it suits. The monarch is not the Crown. The Crown is the state. The monarch is the head of state but is not sovereign. It's a greatly diminished role, and it diminishes further any time a statute replaces a royal prerogative.

> Such is poliitics. Those that seek power rarely surrender it willingly

I'm not suggesting, nor am I convinced, that Cameron's Conservatives would have lost a general election. I think it might have worked something like this. Conservative manifesto might have included remaining in the EU, or perhaps they would have proposed a close external relationship. Other parties would have put forward their approaches. I think Labour under Corbyn would most likely have been in favour of leaving. Lib Dems certainly would have been remain. We would have had debates about a matter of great national importance and the electorate could have then made an informed choice through the proper constitutional framework. For sure, the elephant in the room which is Northen Ireland would have made an appearance. Did you ever hear a word about NI in the run up to the vote?

What happened instead is that something which was never more than a Conservative party matter remained so and overtook everything else. Government decided that they alone could determine what our relationship with Europe would be. They were challenged in the courts and lost. Parliament had to approve. Prime ministers came and went. Boris claims he got Brexit done, but he didn't really, because he went back on key aspects of the customs agreement. So effectively he won his 80 seat majority on a lie. Rishi Sunak, for all his faults, actually got it done properly, but none of us got to vote on that.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

"colluded with Brussels" A) Colluded how? B) Prove it.

The courts ruled that a deal could not be accepted without Parliamentary approval, which implies scrutiny. Therefore, our negotiating position was always going to be a public matter. Government might negotiate a deal only for Parliament to shoot it down. The process was fraught from the beginning.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

I mostly agree with you there, except that I'm not wrong to focus on elected MPs. That's the whole point. Ministers serve the Crown. Backbench MPs do not serve the Crown any more than you or I do. Opposition literally opposes the legislative agenda. MPs legitimately serve their constituents, their party, the national interest, their conscience, and probably other interests that I'm unable to think of right now. If a minister opposes the will of the government, they are sacked, or they resign before it gets to that. Then as a back-bencher, they are free to vote against the government, perhaps risking the whip. They still represent their constituents according to their conscience for as long as their constituents will have them.

That's why I talk about the role of the MP in the larger body of the sovereign Parliament. It's important. It's indeed crucial. So please put treason away. None of the 2019 crew have ever been seriously accused of that nor suffered any repercussions other than democratic ones. Some of them were deselected. Others just lost. That's the way. I've never been tempted to vote Conservative in a national election, but I have tremendous respect for the likes of Philip Hammond, Oliver Letwin, and Dominic Grieve. They were principled and brave, and I admire them.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

Don't be a muppet. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. A Crown servant? What does that mean? Government acts on behalf of the Crown in Parliament to propose laws and conduct the business of governing. Parliament is the body from which government is derived. The monarch's constitutional role is very limited, and Parliament could theoritically pass a law to abolish the monarchy. All this talk of sovereignty (after all, that's what Brexit is supposedly about), but you and so many others don't even understand what that means. "The King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him" Case of Proclamations, 1610.

Parliament is sovereign. Government is not. Parlimanent holds the government to account. MPs act under various interests, and the national interest should be fairly high up there. Some of our MPs in 2019, many of them, felt that exiting the EU (especially without a good deal in place) was not in the national interest, which is nothing to do with the interests of the EU. These MPs were rewarded with a loss at the polls. I'm fine with that. That's how the people decide. That's not treason. That's politics. You simply don't know what you're talking about. When David Cameron lost the vote, he should have immediately called an election, or tried to. To his great and enduring shame, he put the interests of the party ahead of the national interest.

Re: Another brexit benefit

You can teach politics without getting political, just as you can teach about religion without getting all religious. Understanding how government works is important. Most people act like they have no idea that Parliament and government are not the same thing. It's quite shocking.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

It's offensive and ignorant for specific reasons. Offensive because the clear implication with all the language of the rest of the comment is that those public servants were overstepping their authority and defying the will of the people, to the tune of treason. Every time I hear that phrase "will of the people" in the Brexit dialogue, I can't help but cringe. It's ignorant of how Parliament works. Parliament is supreme. Some use the term "sovereign". They make the laws. They made the EU Referendum Act, and they made it so they were not bound by the result of the vote. Then when it came to implementing the result, there was serious disagreement. So in an exercise of Parliamentary Sovereignty, they did their jobs.Those who obstructed a default Brexit put their positions on the line and they lost. It was at that point that I accepted that Brexit would happen, because it was only at that point that the "will of the people" had any constitutional significance. So fuck you.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

The topic is "... then finish with a slur". Direct reference to the complaint against me. So it comes under the same banner. I'm not going to just take that on the chin.

Re: "... then finish with a slur"

I insulted someone who used the phrase "2019 parliament of traitors", which is offensive and ignorant. The ignorance has been more or less admitted. If you have anything at all to say on that score, be my guest. Regardless, try and do a better job of following the context.

Re: Another brexit benefit

I don't accept that definition as completely accurate. You need to show an accepted form of identification because it's a port of entry. As simple as that.

Re: Another brexit benefit

As someone else pointed out, you needed a passport because you were not issued an EU compliant national ID. You needed to show that at the port, either on arrival or on departure, in order to prove your identity and right to enter. This is because Britain is not part of the continental European landmass. It's no different to entering the 48 contiguous United States. I hold a US passport and I have to present it upon arrival. Once I'm in it, I can go where I like. So can you.

Re: Another brexit benefit

From what you wrote, it absolutely was necessary, yes. It's taught in school now, so perhaps you should go back.

Re: Another brexit benefit

> That is interesting and I didn't know about the id card being acceptable. But I still fail to see how that can be called freedom of movement.

What are your expectations with regard to freedom of movement? You just turn up, wave hello and walk through?

Re: Another brexit benefit

The EU Referendum Act explicitly made the result non-binding on Parliament. It would not have passed into law otherwise, and it said nothing about how Brexit would be implemented because it wasn't about that. It wasn't binding on government either, even though they said they would respect the result. The referendum was purely political and Parliament did their job. The 2019 Parliament was as divided as the country and was not able to resolve the problem. It took a general election to sort it out. That's how it's done, ignoring the fact that Boris made some promises he had no intention of keeping.

At the end of the day, it's the national interest that matters. Our democracy does not run on referendums. It's a representative democracy where the elected MPs exercise their votes based on their conscience, among other things. Shame you didn't pay more attention in school.

Re: What's it got to do with Brexit?

"fifth column EU lovers."

Intel ghosts researcher who found web apps spilled 270K staff records

a mainstay in modern computing

> The storied chipmaker is a mainstay in modern computing and an Intel chip has been inside basically every computer I have ever owned.

Yeah, well... not so much anymore. They've really lost their edge. Last few years I have favoured AMD, who have been eating Intel's lunch for x86. The CEO of Intel has admitted that the company is no longer even in the top 10 of semi-conductor businesses worldwide. This has nothing to do with the article, but it's interesting how much deference the security researcher still gives them.

Banning VPNs to protect kids? Good luck with that

They won't ban VPNs

Ministers might discourage the use of VPNs, but HMG won't ban them. They can't. They'll instead declare victory saying that they've made it harder for children to be accidentally exposed to harm online. Children using VPNs know what they're doing and what they want. The harm is already done.

The TSA likes facial recognition at airports. Passengers and politicians, not so much

Re: I always opt out.

> ...you have the option to opt out of facial recognition, and I have never had an agent blink when I do so.

It couldn't possibly depend on the airport.

> "Restricting TSA’s use of biometrics is a step backward for our national security," the letter said. In addition it would "prevent TSA from achieving staffing efficiencies through technology automation by requiring officer-based interactions – forcing 75 percent of TSA’s budget to remain tied to staffing rather than technology investment."

How about about training your staff that travellers have the right to opt out and actually allowing it with minimal hindrance? Assholes.

I just deleted my entire social media presence before visiting the US – and I'm a citizen

Re: What happened?

It's far from the worst exchange I've had. It ended civilly.

Re: What happened?

I've realized that I made the classic panel vs post error, for which I hang my head in shame. There have been 7 elections this century. Let's just call this a genuine and sincere disagreement and leave it there.

Re: What happened?

> Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive.", to me that is a mind boggling comment.

Is it really mind boggling? I just tried to put it into context. It's a clear win. How does ranking it as number two out of six really assist? 2000 was not a clear win and remains highly controversial. 2016 was a clear enough win. It was conceded quickly. 2020 was also a clear win by most measures. It was the same electoral result as 2016 but in reverse. It was better than 2016 when taking the popular vote into account. Yet, this was not conceded and it led to unrest, with the outgoing President standing in front of Capitol Hill directing an attempted coup. To this day, he has still not accepted that result.

I find it unremarkable that out of 6 elections this century, the 2024 election was the second most decisive. It's like a tennis stat. Alcaraz has become the third Spaniard in the Open Era to win a Grand Slam after saving match points. Okay. Interesting, but that's as far as it goes.

> However I like talking to opposites because I could gain new insights and factual information to base my opinions on.

You get better results when you keep your mind open. I feel the same. This is why I became so frustrated. Believe me, I would rather be wrong.

Re: What happened?

" I am surprised sky managed to get that so wrong. "

They didn't get it wrong. We both got it wrong. We've been saying "the first Republican President since 1988", when Sky said "the second Republican President since 1988". Something happened in 1988, and now it's happened twice more. That really takes it down a peg, especially since there are only two people who have been a Republican President after George H W Bush.

Re: What happened?

> Simply I said "You may think that but we can disagree". We can both look at the evidence and come to a differing opinion while even agreeing on the evidence."

Yeah, but you're forgetting that elsewhere you did also call me delusional. I'm not delusional, and I really would like to know how you define "massively" because that's relevant. Engaging with a view that one can change someone else's mind does not require hubris. It is reciprocal. You must be willing and able to to change your own.

Re: What happened?

"That means he scored more votes than Harris (74.4 million), or any other candidate. No Republican has managed that feat since 2004." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5w9w160xdo"

Interesting. I just noticed this statement you'd made in an earlier comment on the thread. It seemed to have escaped your notice when you gave the factually incorrect Sky News quote. On the other hand, that quote saying he is the second Republican since 1988 to win the popular vote is awkward. Are they not including 1988? I suppose not. I mean, it's sort of neither here nor there. Apart from himself, he's only the second Republican President to have come after GHWB. I could state that as "He's the first Republican President to win the popular vote since the last time he won, when he lost the popular vote, and GWB did the same thing."

Re: What happened?

Okay, so if you really are listening then just listen please and really give it a go. Yes, I am anti-Trump. I don't like him. I think he's tearing the fabric of the Constitution. I have reasons. Rule of law is very important to me, and not just me. President of the United States calling for a federal judge to be impeached because they went against him. That's bad. He's taking on the judicial branch and they are mostly backing down. I suppose you could also call that an impressive achievement.

I'm not rabidly anti-Trump. I don't call him Orange Fuhrer or any of that nonsense. I would like to be wrong about him. I would like to be wrong about climate change and all sorts of other things. I hope I am. Truly, in some ways I can't help but admire him. It's not mental gymnastics. That's quite patronizing. You quoted me selectively.

Let's talk about your beef with me continuing to raise the thing about majority/plurality. Really pay attention to this. I've been trying to explain why we were even talking. I made a reply to you but was not particulary interested in the thread until I saw you write something that I thought was simply wrong, and I wanted to correct it. I now understand that it was not that simple. But that's why we're here. It went from there. I'm not fixated on it. I get it. Different meanings of the same term. Which brings me to the crux of it.

I think we must have different definitions of "massively", because although Trump clearly won in 2024 with a better result than 2016 and some decent achievements, for me it does not stack up to America voting massively for him. I explained my reasoning. So let me define "massively" as an adverb. Oxford dictionary:

----%<----

massively (adverb)

on a vast scale:

"biotechnology is expected to contribute massively to the global economy"

to a very great extent; extremely:

"research at all levels is massively underfunded"

----%<----

There are other meanings such as "in a very large and heavy or solid form", but this is the best fit. Trump won in 2024 with not quite an absolute majority of the popular vote, and his share was about 3% larger than Harris'. He took 312 electoral votes to her 226. He did well. Good for him. But he did not win on a vast scale or to a very great extent. It was not as close as 2016, but it was still pretty close. Not a huge margin. He did not achieve the feat of being the only Republican President since 1988 to win the popular vote. That turned out to be false. He did, however, achieve some other impressive statistics. For my part, I am glad that the election was not contested and that there was no serious violence.

I can accept what I don't like if it's true. I cannot accept what is not true. You have not backed up your claim of "a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump." to my satisfaction. If you have any other evidence that you would like to share, then please do and I will evaluate it. Hopefully now we are closer to some sort of understanding.

Re: What happened?

"I honestly expected you to give up sooner but I am very glad you didnt."

So... what? This was all some trolling exercise? I like to argue if logic is in the mix. I don't mind being proven wrong when that happens. I don't like being messed about though. Someone who expects their debating partner to simply give up is approaching it from a different angle, one where their mind is not really open. And I gave up after you continued to put a subjective spin on every point I made, reading intent that was never there. But that does happen on here. I just hoped it would be different.

Re: What happened?

I'm no longer interested in talking about this because you're not listening to me and it's going nowhere.

Re: What happened?

Why not take that thumb down and stick it somewhere? This is getting silly, and I'm done.

Re: What happened?

"Yet you keep bringing this up as though you are in denial."

No, I took it back to basics and recounted the timeline. I became interested when I saw what seemed to be an obvious factual error. I have no emotional investment.

"I am amazed. I guess that is your opinion but how it is big whoop that he is the only Republican President to win the popular vote since 1988? I find that incredible how you would consider that so insignificant."

I explained why this is insignificant, but you've left all of that out. And the fact that it's not even true is surely the final nail in the coffin.

Re: What happened?

Let's take it right back to basics, and I was replying to you after you argued with someone else who correctly stated that Trump did not win a majority. And what that traces back to was a comment you made that I didn't even take issue with which was that our discussion was rooted "In a country that clearly voted massively in favour of Trump."

Among the evidence you adduced for this statement was the 49.80% share of the popular vote that he received and the 312 to 226 win in the electoral college, which by the way is only 6 more electoral votes than 2016. This and some other quotes that you provided you intend to show prove that America "clearly voted massively in favour of Trump." I don't find your evidence very persuasive, though there were a couple of things that were somewhat persuasive. So indeed, big whoop about being the only Republican President since GHWB to win the popular vote, because there have only been five times in the history of the Union when the winner has lost the popular vote, and that didn't happen at all in the 20th century. In the 21st century, it was Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016. In fact it's not even true. Bush managed to win the popular vote in 2004 with a majority.

None of your evidence shows it to be a massive nationwide vote in favour of Trump. It's a modest vote in favour of Trump, which is more than enough. It was more than most of us were expecting. It was a decisive and impressive achievement, but it is not a landslide, even with all the swing states. It's nothing like Reagan in 1980 or Bush in 1988. In the electoral college, it's better than GWB did in either of his elections, but not quite up there with Clinton's or Obama's first elections.

Re: What happened?

Another way to look at it is this. Trump's 49.80% share of the vote compares to Harris' 48.32% share in absolute terms as roughly a 3% greater share. It's modest, not massive. Combined with the electoral college results, it represents a clear victory, and looking at previous elections one could reasonably but tentatively plot a trajectory. The rest is just noise.

Re: What happened?

By which of course I meant that he did better than 8 years ago.

Re: What happened?

I really don't understand why you're freaking out on me. I calmly stated how I interpret the quotes you provided to support your view that America massively voted in favour of Trump. It's just not true. If it had been true, I'd be upset but I'd accept it. Although I saw it coming, I was upset but accepted that he won decisively and that it was fair. I don't see how you can possibly sustain the argument that America voted massively in favour of a candidate who did not win a mathematical majority of the votes. And its relative improvement over 2016 is also not material to that objective assessment. He did better than four years ago. There's no reasonable argument to the contrary. The electoral college mechanics can deliver an appreciable victory to candidates who did not win even a plurality of the popular vote. He won 306 to 232 in 2016. That also looks impressive in isolation. None of this has anything to do with my opinion of Trump. 2024 was an impressive achievement. I never said it wasn't. I just said it doesn't represent a result massively in favour of him. I think you may be projecting your own hangups here.

Re: What happened?

All of that supporting information you supply tells a story which is true to an extent, but it's subject to journalistic narrative and the devil is in the detail. He may have increased has share in 90% of US counties, but by how much? That's a misleading stat. He is the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. Big whoop. That says more about the Republican party and the electoral college than anything else. Trump's win being the second clearest this century is also not particularly impressive. There have been six elections in this century and four of them were less decisive. One was more decisive. The seven swing states all went to him. Okay, that's reasonably impressive, but it's not massive. The last one, all 50 states shifted towards the Republican party, is the most impressive. It only takes a small shift though. The popular vote was not won by a majority, and his victory is not how you've described it.

Re: What happened?

I'm am American by birth, and I have lived in Britain for 26 years. You trotted out mathematics. Mathematically, under 50% ain't a majority. Politically, I've never heard of this relative majority thing of which you speak. I looked it up and it's synonymous with plurality. Within the history of this thread, you would like to refer to this relative majority to say that Americans "voted massively in favour of Trump". That is not supportable.

Re: What happened?

I can't help but chuckle at a thumbs down for pointing out that less than 50% is not a majority.

Re: What happened?

No, you're wrong. < 50% is never a majority. < 50% *of the vote* is what we're talking about. It doesn't matter how may ways it's split. Why doesn't "other" count? He didn't win those either. We don't say an MP won a majority for their seat in the Commons when they get less than 50%, do we? Doesn't matter if 5% went to Monster Raving Loony Party.

Re: What happened?

With respect, 49.8% of the votes is less than 50% so how can that be a majority?

OTF, which backs Tor, Let's Encrypt and more, sues to save its funding from Trump cuts

It's not. There's one with 110 further up the chain, but have another.

The real reason why Trump is killing the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai'i

That's not his pick. He's nominated Neil Jacobs, who hasn't been confirmed yet. Laura Grimm is the chief of staff and acting administrator.

"Nope. President nominates, then Senate confirms, ..."

You're being (probably deliberately) obtuse. The President nominates people who are like minded on policy. The Senate who confirms them (if they even bother) are controlled by the same party. Trump doesn't have to go through the budget line by line, and that was never the implication.

Re: "not listening" is really DISAGREEING

Listening requires hearing. The reverse is not true.