Honestly, skip planning mode and tell it you simply want to discuss and to write up a doc with your discussions. Planning mode has a whole system encouraging it to finish the plan and start coding. It's easier to just make it clear you're in a discussion and write a doc phase and it works way better.
That's a good suggestion. I'll try it next time. That said, it's really easy to start small things in planning mode and it's still an annoyance for them. This feels like a workflow that should be native.
I’ve really enjoyed Shapr3D (built on Parasolid). Nothing particularly better than the usual competitors but the interface is really intuitive and you can realistically develop on an iPad. Curious if anyone else has had experiences with it.
It’s my default. It is hands down the easiest to use modern CAD software today, and I’ve tried most of them. I too use it on the iPad and Mac, wish I could get it to install under WINE.
I like it to. I am just not happy with how they handle model history. And it is missing many of the tooling I like from things like Fusion. A thread tool would go a long way for hobbyists.
To be fair, that's not exactly what Loper Bright says. It holds that the courts should read the statute independently and not assume that Agency rules or procedures are prima facie controlling where the statute is ambiguous.
I brought a 5G Peplink modem (which has 4 external antennas) in my checked luggage and got "randomly searched" by TSA on both legs of a trip once, which I thought was pretty hilarious.
I used to travel with a case full of parts for work and just started leaving extra zipties inside because the TSA agents that would search it wouldn't always ziptie it back closed after they were done.
I've brought mini clusters of bare Pis many times before (and other strange contraptions with jumper wires all around), and the only time I was ever stopped for a deeper search was when I left my x-ray shielding bag for film in the same case with the mini cluster.
Whenever I see these and play with models like this (and the demos on this page), the movement in the world always feel like a dolly zoom. Things in the distance tend to stay in the distance, even as the camera moves in that direction, and only the local area changes features.
I feel like some of the newer standards like CSS Grid instead of tables might be the best way to go. Many HTML/CSS improvements were not just bloat but actually better standards to build on.
Right! Crazy fonts or cursors, not on smolweb (as another use put it) but Flex and Grid are almost necessary. There are loads of things that could be dropped (it feels like).
I just want one of these browsers to give me a proper ComboBox (text, search and drop-down thing)
Yes, but grids are everywhere in the UIs, not just the tables. In 2000-s, the problem was the opposite of what we have now: every interface was a table full of tables, because there was no other way to position things reliably.
But now we have best of both worlds: use <table> for the actual tables, and CSS grid for UI layouts.
But the rendering engine might be easier to build with TABLE as a specialization of CSS Grid layout rendering rather than the slow real world work of CSS Grid being a generalization of TABLE rendering.
Yeah, I loved Elm, but the restriction that you can't build your own "effect" modules really made it impossible to embrace. Say you want to use a new web API similar to using Elm's core `Http`, well... you can try and fork Elm...
Privacy Pass docs [0] cover this, but it is mostly referenced deeper in the paper. I believe the idea is that the tokens returned by the server are "unlinkable" to the (modified) tokens passed back by the client. So the server knows it passed back tokens A, B and C to some users, and later receives tokens X, Y and Z. It knows that X, Y and Z are valid, but not their correspondance to the tokens it issued. It uses elliptic curve cryptography for this.
After reading your comment I still didn't quite understand how the server couldn't just simply log the tokens A, B, C issued to user X. So I had a look at the website you linked: IIUC the key is that the tokens are actually generated by the user and the server never sees them (unblinded) before their first usage:
> When an internet challenge is solved correctly by a user, Privacy Pass will generate a number of random nonces that will be used as tokens. These tokens will be cryptographically blinded and then sent to the challenge provider. If the solution is valid, the provider will sign the blinded tokens and return them to the client. Privacy Pass will unblind the tokens and store them for future use.
> Privacy Pass will detect when an internet challenge is required in the future for the same provider. In these cases, an unblinded, signed token will be embedded into a privacy pass that will be sent to the challenge provider. The provider will verify the signature on the unblinded token, if this check passes the challenge will not be invoked.
> the tokens are actually generated by the user and the server never sees them (unblinded) before their first usage
Here is how I see it:
1. The user generates a token/nonce => T
2. The user blinds the token with secret blinding factor b => Blinded token TB = T*b
3. The user sends the blinded token for signing. The server signs it and returns it to the user => Signed blinded token TBS = Sign(TB)
4. The user unblinds the token (this does not break the signature) => Signed Unblinded token TS = TBS/b
5. The user sends TS for its search query.
The server signed TB, then received TS. Even if it logged that TB = user, it cannot link TS to TB, because it does not know the blinding factor b. Thus, it cannot link the search query with TS to the user.
Ah thank you. That's the part I was missing. I know this example is wrong in 100 different ways, but something like "yeah we know a key with prime factor X is valid, and this has one", but there's thousands of those out there, so it can't tie out to whom.
Couldn't the "test" add some variety of math challenge, thus making a simple proxy insufficient. Obviously, this method would add more noise to the final calculation, but if the proxy would need to forward its data to the end-user machine to perform the math, then a simple proxy in this case wouldn't be sufficient.
reply