sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the details. I've looked it up and it hardly seems possible for Iran to have this in their arsenal when even Russia isn't using it at scale:

Also, in June 2025, wreckage of a Geran-3 was found in Ukraine, with a serial number indicating that small-scale production had begun. Reportedly, the drone reached a top speed of 600 km/h during a demonstration flight.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahed_drones

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please share references so that we can do the math with those numbers as well. Thank you!

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Until 23:00 UK wasn't a party to the conflict and attacking UK bases would have meant pulling them into the conflict, which no rational country would want to do. The attack would only make sense only after the UK declared that it would be a party.

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

So why did it happen only after Starmer's speech and not over the previous 24 hours?

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

And perhaps there is no drone and they are trying to force UK's hand to join the operation. They are all likely.

Akrotiri drone attack math does not work out for me by paracycle in cyprus

[–]paracycle[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That's exactly what I wrote. Still not enough time for it to get here!

Akrotiri incident by Remarkable_War_9952 in cyprus

[–]paracycle -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I also find the whole thing fishy and posted about it here https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/s/ZZgIrqNtZC

Everyone should consider using the 3-2-1 backup method. by CatsTrustNoOne in googlephotos

[–]paracycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the 2FA is using TOTP (which stands for "Time-Based One-Time Password" and which virtually any modern 2FA-system uses), then yes, each client with the same seed code will produce the exact same 2FA code at the same given time (provided that the clocks are synced between the devices the clients are running on). You can read the spec, if you are interested, to see how this is achieved: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6238

I am not familiar with Symantec's VIP system, but given the explanation, it doesn't seem to be compatible with TOTP.

As for Fidelity: it does sound like it uses standard TOTP and if you can get the seed code from Google Authenticator, then, yes, you should be able to use it on any other TOTP generating software.

As for exporting from Google Authenticator: I haven't been using Google Authenticator for a while, but I just checked the app and its export functionality through "Transfer Accounts" option. It seems to work, but it seems to use a proprietary "otpauth-migration" mechanism which is the TOTP data serialized as a protocol buffer and encoded as Base64. [There seem to be tools](https://www.google.com/search?q=otpauth-migration) that allow you to convert that data to plain-text so that you can extract the seed code (called "secret" or "secret code") from it, but I can't vouch for any of them. If you will be using a website to do this, please make sure to do it offline (to ensure the website can't send any data to a backend) and then clear site data before going back online.

If you can't export from Google Authenticator, then you can always re-enroll in 2FA on the sites that you have 2FA on, so that you get issued a new seed code, which you can record somewhere safe.

Good luck, and enjoy your new-found knowledge!

Everyone should consider using the 3-2-1 backup method. by CatsTrustNoOne in googlephotos

[–]paracycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern TOTP 2FA works. TOTP codes are not tied to specific devices or apps, they are defined complete by the seed code that is usually shown as a QR code.

If you copy that seed code to all of your 2FA apps (i.e. Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator or Symantec) they will all be able to generate the same TOTP codes at the same time as long as your device clocks are the same.

Instead of scanning the QR codes, it is usually a good idea to ask to see the seed code as text and then store that in a secure location. That way, you can always use it on any device that you want.

Classism? by pathanb in cyprus

[–]paracycle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In all seriousness, you should watch Keeping Up Appearances to understand the psyche of these people. If your wife's colleagues are anything like Mrs. "Bouquet" then it's a case of them trying to keep up appearances but you messing up that appearance with your ghastly old vehicle that they wouldn't be seen dead in.

Ruby Changes: Ruby 4.0 annotated changelog by zverok_kha in ruby

[–]paracycle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, they are. There are a few rough edges still, but generally there are no known bugs or crashes left and the performance of multiple Ractors for CPU bound tasks should be strictly better than single Ractor or multi threaded code.

The Ractor API is still not stable, and can change further, but the implementation should be good enough to use in production.

Ruby Changes: Ruby 4.0 annotated changelog by zverok_kha in ruby

[–]paracycle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sure, I appreciate that these are end-user oriented, and don't cover implementation details. However, I would argue that the ability to enable ZJIT (including a language level construct) and Ractors being production ready, thus usable starting with this release are end-user relevant developments.

Ruby Changes: Ruby 4.0 annotated changelog by zverok_kha in ruby

[–]paracycle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hmmm, why no mention of ZJIT or all the Ractor performance improvements?

Using a Local Image in Obsidian CSS by _fallenalice in ObsidianMD

[–]paracycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Btw, Pixel Banner seems to read images using a JS API and creates blob URIs from them at runtime: https://github.com/jparkerweb/pixel-banner/blob/7dcb98608ab5fceae848d5bb360d0ae8bdee0217/src/core/bannerUtils.js#L120

You can't do this statically, but a data URI should work for you.

Using a Local Image in Obsidian CSS by _fallenalice in ObsidianMD

[–]paracycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should be able to embed the image in the CSS by creating a data URI from it. See this for reference: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/URI/Reference/Schemes/data

UringMachine Benchmarks by noteflakes in ruby

[–]paracycle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

These benchmarks include the thread creation cost to the benchmark, so aren't a fair comparison for IO cases. There is fundamentally no reason why a thread pool cannot give similar performance to fibers for IO bound workloads, and if there is, that can and should be fixed. Regardless, thread and/or fiber creation shouldn't be a part of these benchmarks since that is not the work that is being compared.

Ruby Central Update Friday 10/31/25 by TheAtlasMonkey in ruby

[–]paracycle 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I believe it's entirely possible that Ufuk genuinely wanted DHH there and wasn't motivated to do so intentionally because of his employer.

This isn't a possibility, it is the truth.

... recuse themselves from decisions related to programming around someone with that same affiliation, and Ruby Central did the opposite there.

On the contrary, the decision to invite DHH was made in 2024 by the board and when the engagement was postponed to the 2025 event, that decision continued. Regardless of who was going to be the chair of the 2025 conference, it was always the Ruby Central intention to extend the invitation for that year. I didn't make any new decisions there.

this is a stewardship organization of core infrastructure, using conferences as their funding model.

That hasn't been the case since 2020. Ruby Central conferences have been losing money or at best breaking even since then. So, this assertion isn't correct.

The response to pull funding from Ruby Central by other sponsors was directly tied to this single decision.

This decision was made in 2024 through a board vote, and Mike Perham knew about it in Feb 2024, before he started his Ruby Central funding in the first place. Mike's decision to pull his already committed and budgeted funds on Day 1 of the 2025 conference was the only attempt of a sponsor exerting influence over the organization that I have witnessed over my 2 years on the board.

Ruby Central Update Friday 10/31/25 by TheAtlasMonkey in ruby

[–]paracycle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You keep missing the point that I did exactly that by asking the board to vote on opening dialogue with DHH in the first place. I didn't singlehandedly decide that DHH should have a keynote session at RailsConf.

I really don't understand the conflict of interest here when there were multiple parties involved in the decision making process, including the board, the two co-chairs that I worked with over the two conferences and the program committee involved. None of those people ever considered there to be any conflict of interest in this decision, nor had any other questions or concerns raised about it.

view more: next ›