For the past decade or more, the people that drone on about male privilege were arguing conscription would never happen again so it didn't matter. They knew they were telling a lie then, they'll just come up with a new one now.
that makes better sense now, thanks. I feel dumb now that I re-read it, in my mind they patched nextjs/react and the new patch somehow required more buffer size.
RuBep? As ever, the fastest way to get a correct answer on the internet is to post an incorrect one:
> The Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers Inc., the international governing group for such technology, has designated P1901.1 as the technical designation given to the RuBee technology, which was named RuBee by Visible Assets. "There is no real reason we named it RuBee," said Mr. Stevens. "It actually was named after the song 'Ruby Tuesday.' It just sounded good."
Yeah, this is basically what I was wondering, why QUIC used UDP instead of their own protocol if it's so straightforward. It seems like the answer may be "it's not as interference-free as they'd like it".
UDP pretty much just tacks a source/destination port pair onto every IP datagram, so its primary function is to allow multiple independent UDP peers to coexist on the same IP host. (That is, UDP just multiplexes an IP link.) UDP as a protocol doesn't add any additional network guarantees or services on top of IP.
QUIC is still "their own protocol", just implemented as another protocol nested inside a UDP envelope, the same way that HTTP is another protocol typically nested inside a TCP connection. It makes some sense that they'd piggyback on UDP, since (1) it doesn't require an additional IP protocol header code to be assigned by IANA, (2) QUIC definitely wants to coexist with other services on any given node, and (3) it allows whatever middleware analyses that exist for UDP to apply naturally to QUIC applications.
(Regarding (3) specifically, I imagine NAT in particular requires cooperation from residential gateways, including awareness of both the IP and the TCP/UDP port. Allowing a well-known outer UDP header to surface port information, instead of re-implementing ports somewhere in the QUIC header, means all existing NAT implementations should work unchanged for QUIC.)
It's effectively impossible to use anything other than TCP or UDP these days.
Some people here will argue that it actually really is, and that everybody experiencing issues is just on a really weird connection or using broken hardware, but those weird connections and bad hardware make up the overwhelming majority of Internet connections these days.
Yeah, so... You can do it. But only for some values of you. In a NAT world, the NAT needs to understand the protocol so that it can adjust the core multiplexing in order to adjust addresses. A best effort NAT could let one internal IP at a time connect to each external IP on an unknown protocol, but that wouldn't work for QUIC: Google expects multiple clients behind a NAT to connect to its service IPs. It can often works for IP tunneling protocols where at most one connection to an external IP isn't super restrictive. But even then, many NATs won't pass unknown IP protocols at all.
Most firewalls will drop unknown IP protocols. Many will drop a lot of TCP; some drop almost all UDP. This is why so much stuff runs over tcp ports 80 and 443; it's almost always open. QUIC/HTTP/3 encourages opening of udp/443, so it's a good port to run unrelated things over too.
Also, given that SCTP had similar goals to QUIC and never got much deployment or support in OSes and NATs and firewalls and etc. It's a clear win to just use UDP and get something that will just work on a large portion of networks.
When it comes to QUIC, QUIC works best with unstable end-user internet (designed for http3 for the mobile age). Most end-user internet access is behind various layers of CGNAT. The way that NAT works is by using your port numbers to increase the address space. If you have 2^32 IPv4 addresses, you have 2^48 IPv4 address+port pairs. All these NAT middleboxes speak TCP and UDP only.
Additionally, firewalls are also designed to filter out any weird packets. If the packet doesn't look like you wanted to receive it, it's dropped. It usually does this by tracking open ports just like NAT, therefore many firewalls also don't trust custom protocols.
Using UDP means QUIC support is as "easy" as adding it to the browser and server software. To add it as a separate protocol would have involved all OS's needing to add support for it into their networking stacks and that would have taken ages and involved more politics. The main reason QUIC was created was so that Google could more effectively push ads and add tracking, remember. The incentives were not there for others to implement it.
Dear God, I hate the way the Windows 11 Start Menu takes slightly too long to open - long enough that I often accidentally close it again. You can actually watch CPU usage increase if you toggle it.
> You can actually watch CPU usage increase if you toggle it.
Not any more, I kept windows 11 around for gaming but I binned the partition, how they managed to make a 7950X3D/7900XTX feel "clunky" is astounding given that I live in KDE which has a reputation for been a "heavy" DE and yet it it feels instantaneously fast in every dimension compared to windows 11.
Tell us about how Hedy Lamarr invented Wi-Fi, how Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, how Margaret Hamilton wrote the software for the moon landings, and then repeat this claim.
Sure and then you can tell me about Marion Donovan, Nettie Stevens, Vera Rubin, Lise Meitner, Alice Ball, Margaret Knight, Elizabeth Magie, Margaret Keane, Candace Pert, and the hundreds of others.
(Bonus points if you know even 3 of those without looking them up)
Marion Donovan appears to have invented a "diaper cover" among other things, her patent then being ignored by several companies. Unfortunate, but I've never heard of whoever supposedly stole credit for that ground-breaking invention either, so it hardly seems relevant. I'd hope in the age of Ali Express and Temu that I don't need to point out how often men's patents get ignored.
I had heard of Nettie Stevens. Her work was not stolen, she published after Edmund Beecher Wilson.
Vera Rubin presented the very controversial theory of dark matter. Given that she worked closely with a male collaborator, Kent Ford, who co-authored many of her papers, it seems more likely that their work was overlooked due to initial resistance to the theory itself.
Lise Meitner was a Jew in Nazi Germany.
Alice Ball's work seems to have been stolen after she died in isolation in a leprosy colony. I'd never heard of Arthur Dean either.
I'll stop there as this will take forever otherwise. What you have listed seem to be extremely tenuous as evidence of gender bias - one can quite easily hop on Google and find plenty of examples of stolen inventions, from automatic windscreen wipers to Facebook.
He didn't steal anything. Franklin's PhD student took the famous Photo 51, Franklin was credited in the paper [1], and there's much more besides [2]:
"We are much indebted to Dr. Jerry Donohue for constant advice and criticism, especially on interatomic distances. We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King’s College, London."
Ah yes, he just took Rosy's pictures (she doe snot deserve her full nale) and then went on discussing what she wears.
I am a man who did his PhD in the 2000's. If my supervisor took my data and went on publishing them under his name, not only would I have kicked him in the ass publicly, but I would make my personal vendetta to crap his academic life.
She was a woman (with a not-so-nice character), in the 50s, so this would not have flown, obviously.
Let's not pretend he was not a crappy person in the name of a virgin academic world.
> If my supervisor took my data and went on publishing them under his name, not only would I have kicked him in the ass publicly
Setting your bizarre ranting aside, you appear to have misread - Franklin was the supervisor. It was her PhD student Raymond Gosling who took Photo 51:
I used "supervisor" loosely here - both Watson and Crick were hierarchically above her.
As for "bizarre ranting" - I guess you have never had anything you did credited to somebody else. Good for you (seriously), but in that case please do not comment about the emotions of others.
If you did and think this is fine - well we live in different worlds then.
The only thievery here is yours. Just as we are expected to believe that Ada Lovelace invented programming, Hedy Lamarr invented Wi-Fi, and Margaret Hamilton wrote the software for the Apollo missions all by her lonesome, we must believe this, too. None of it is true, and when this is pointed out, the response is frothing accusations of misogyny that you've so aptly demonstrated.
Well, froth away. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA and appropriately credited Dr. R. E. Franklin (not "Rosy") in their paper.
> Ah yes, he just took Rosy's pictures (she doe snot deserve her full nale)
I took that as an accusation of misogyny and I'm unclear how else it could be interpreted. Watson named her as Dr. R. E. Franklin, so it can't be him that was being impugned.
Please also note the frothy inability to type - have I replicated that?
> don't deem worthy
Deem worthy of what?
You are demonstrating my point perfectly. You have no interest in what these women did (or did not) do, what their achievements actually were (and they certainly had them), they're simply a totem that you elevate beyond reason as proof of what a Very Nice Guy you are.
> as if you have them written down on an enemies list
reply