Yeah I probably have a number of false positives from my semi-fascist nginx configuration [2] I just use this for hobby sites and would never be accepted as a commercially supported CDN. They do fancy detection methods whereas I just use simple hacky methods. I tend to tune things so my friends can get through and some random people may get dropped until I look at what they are sending. For what it's worth each method is entirely optional or tunable to a persons needs or fever dreams. Probably language settings.
Many of the things I do are terrible ideas. That is half the reason I keep doing them.
The goal here is to show people some of the things that can be done not that they should do them. It's up to each person to experiment and determine what tickles their fancy.
This was in the olden days when your language's type system would maybe look like C's if you were serious and be even less of a thing when you were not.
The hard part about compiling Rust is not really parsing, it's the type system including parts like borrow checking, generics, trait solving (which is turing-complete itself), name resolution, drop checking, and of course all of these features interact in fun and often surprising ways. Also macros. Also all the "magic" types in the StdLib that require special compiler support.
This is why e.g. `rustc` has several different intermediate representations. You no longer have "the" AST, you have token trees, HIR, THIR, and MIR, and then that's lowered to LLVM or Cranelift or libgccjit. Each stage has important parts of the type system happen.
Consider, for example, the "Hydra" cryptid (second in the list OOP linked).
This is a BB(2,5) machine (2 states, 5 symbols). There are other BB(2,5) machines that take more than 10↑↑4 steps to terminate. And the "Hydra" is called a cryptid because it might run even longer than that. So "naively" running it is unlikely to yield results before the heat death of the universe.
Of course, you can run it more cleverly by looking at what the machine is doing and essentially re-implementing this in a faster language. People have in fact done this, and simulated 4 million "fast" steps (corresponding to much more "naive" steps), and not found it to halt. If you want to run the simulation yourself, the code is on the website OOP linked, in the article about the Hydra.
10↑↑4 is Knuth's arrow notation, it means 10^(10^(10^10)). Which is really big. The inner exponent 10^10000000 is already way, way over the limit of computational steps you have any hope of physically computing [2] without some kind of algorithmic shortcut.
[2] I wave my hands and put this limit at about 10^70. The universe has ~10^40 atoms and a trillion years is ~10^30 nanoseconds. So 10^70 is approximately "How many computations you could do if you turned every atom in the universe into a 1 GHz CPU and ran them for a trillion years." (Assuming magical technology that doesn't need power / cooling / communications and parallelizes perfectly.)
I was about to say that I never encounter TLS errors while browsing, but that's not strictly true. There is one such website, and it's only because the webmaster had a stroke and can't maintain it currently. But apart from that rather sad story I can't relate to your issues at all.
I agree. I don't remember the last time I saw an expired cert, and it was probably an abandoned web site (which would eventually expire even with a 3-year certificate as well). At least with Let's Encrypt you have to automate it.
Perhaps this article was written by the same AI that failed to understand what it was supposed to do in the first place? The post doesn't make a lot of sense and the writing seems fishy. I still don't understand what was wrong with he first code.
You might want to follow the article and wake up to the slow destruction of the US's constitutional architecture.
How can you seriously claim the president has no control over the court when he previously appointed three judges, with three more having been appointed by other presidents from his party? Appointments which made the court reverse decades-old case law?
Turns out switching from Firefox mobile to Chrome mobile "fixes" this. Thanks for supporting the free and open internet.
reply