Dipole

joined 1 year ago
[–] Dipole@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

I had the issue reoccur, and I can confirm that the jwt token was missing from the request to /, but present for other resources such as the css stylesheet

[–] Dipole@pawb.social 1 points 1 day ago

I waited for the issue to reoccur so I could test that out. The jwt cookie is missing from the request to / but is present in several of the other resources used for the page. That's consistent with Crashdoom's comment. Sometimes, the issue would only occur in a specific tab (refreshing the tab did nothing, but opening a new tab would have me logged in), which is roughly the opposite of what that user reported, but this time, it was a problem in any tab

 

For the past 3 or so days, at least once per day, I will load pawb.social and discover that I'm not logged in anymore. I had the same problem for several days about 3 weeks ago

[–] Dipole@pawb.social 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't aware that there were any games that could make meaningful use of 16 cores, let alone games that might want more. Was there a major advancement in game programming when I wasn't looking? Or is the headline as far off base as I think?

[–] Dipole@pawb.social 7 points 4 months ago

"If one root server directs traffic lookups to one intermediate server and another root server sends lookups to a different intermediate server, important parts of the Internet as we know it could collapse"

this doesn't pass the sniff test. Records sometimes being out of date for some users is par for the course for DNS. Domain owners already need to account for that. Also, the "intermediate server"s in question would be things like the .com and .org operators' servers. I would hope the likes of Verisign and the Public Interest Registry can handle a delay in sunsetting a DNS server to accommodate something like this.

[–] Dipole@pawb.social 1 points 7 months ago

Any system where the most severe outcome is "A moderator will look at it" is an easy sell for me, so I wouldn't have any problem with 1 or 2. And an opt-in system of nearly any kind is going to be okay by me so long as it doesn't stand to harm anyone who hasn't given informed consent, so 3 also sounds fine.

With 4, I'd definitely want more details on what is considered "a significant risk or pattern of spammy behavior" and on why the temporary suppression "may break existing conversations or prevent new ones" before being comfortable with such a system.

 

I'm going through old cables and get the impression that this is for a specific product, but I can't tell what product it's for.