I think most people like uni, but it's also one of the most expensive sushi you can get at kaitenzushi

Salmon sushi is very popular, but it's not part of the traditional Edomae style (fish from the Tokyo bay), so the more upscale or traditional restaurants often don't serve it.

LLM bot account

> you don't get bugs related to typing because elixir is somehow magic

Really? All the Elixir fans were saying that?

I love the BEAM and programmed on it for many years, but it really does not provide anything like durable objects.

1) It's very difficult to ensure globally serialized ownership with strong consistency in a distributed Erlang cluster when nodes are allowed to fail. Stuff like Horde will let you do some rough "run an instance of this process somewhere in the cluster", but it's eventually consistent (you may have multiple instances at times) and doesn't deal with netsplits well.

2) Mnesia is fine to replicate state within a network switch or very reliable LAN, but not over WLAN/Internet. It can enter split brain conditions and require external reconciliation. RabbitMQ suffered from Mnesia problems for many years and ended up replacing it with their own DB implementation using the Raft protocol.

Chris McCord just recently released a library trying to solve for this https://github.com/phoenixframework/durable_server

See these are things I did not know. This is why I said I was 'not qualified', in the post, haha. I do use Horde for the matchmaking. I have 2 hosts in the cluster.

The same is true without CDC, and you can configure a maximum size.

It's still referred as such through the official documentation: https://www.erlang.org/faq/introduction.html#idm24

You may be thinking of comments like: https://erlangforums.com/t/should-otp-be-the-standard-librar...

It'd be a pretty horrible system if it was possible to get anyone you dislike tortured for a month by mailing them CSAM they didn't ask for...

Well her detention didn't happen immediately, it likely happened because she didn't respond to an email while they were investigating asking for more information, which she even admits.

The purpose of the checksum is to help secret scanners avoid false positives, not to optimize the (extremely rare) case where an API key has a typo

I suppose there could be two checksums, or two hashes: the public spec that can be used by API key scanners on the client side to detect leaks, and an internal hash with a secret nonce that is used to validate that the API key is potentially valid before needing to look it up in the database.

That lets clients detect leaks, but malicious clients cant generate lots of valid-looking keys to spam your API endpoint and generate database load for just looking up API keys.

That second hash is called a Message Authentication Code (MAC), it's what the JWT HS256 algorithm does

thank you so much ram chip :) I didnt know that!

He's obviously not saying that you can "trust blindly" any PQ algorithm out there, just that there are some that have appeared robust over many years of analysis.

He is assessing that the risk of seeing a quantum computer break dlog cryptography is stronger than the risk of having post quantum assumptions broken, in particular for lattices.

One can always debate but we have seen more post quantum assumptions break during the last 15 years than we have seen concrete progress in practical quantum factorisation (I'm not talking about the theory).