This is foolish when you apply a patch to an open source project it essentially becomes public knowledge to anyone who is paying attention at that point. The more you do this the more eyes on patches. This only yields ignorance and suppresses urgency.

Only telling a select few (normally by subscription to very expensive security services) gives giant media an advantage it is not clear to me they have a right to or in any way deserve.

Finally as much money locked up in black/gray hat activities we don't need to be enriching anyone for contributing to an industry of an elite few none of us have any reason to trust.

Behavior of crowd at recent BlackHat toward Mr. Alexander made crystal clear to me kids have all grown up and money runs the show now. The more money the more "ethics" bend towards production of additional money.

Ah the good ole days before the IRS collected and data mined all our credit card transactions.

I'm privileged to be part of that 1% elite who believes all of their time estimates are wrong and laughably absurd while making them.

Yes, when it comes to borders legitimacy is everything.

Says you.

You misunderstand.

Cancer is poised to become the worlds leading cause of death as worlds average population ages with at least 1 out of 5 of everyone dying from it regardless.

Assume an effected area has a population of 1 million.

20% of 1M peeps = 200,000 dead peeps
1% of 1M peeps = 10,000 dead peeps
0.1% of 1M peeps = 1,000 dead peeps

Even 1% is a LOT of dead peeps yet in relative terms next to 20% quite small.

In the real world pool of victims is likely to be orders greater than 1M as contamination is distributed to nearby densely populated cities yet the percentage of cancer deaths much lower than 1%.

Even very small percentages of increased risk are still to borrow from Biden a "big fucking deal" they still translate to hundreds or thousands of real peeps dying that would have never happened anyway but vanishingly difficult to see with confidence using statistical methods because the 20% represents such a huge noise floor.

Waving your hands saying there are no confirmed radiation caused cancers is disingenuous and this is my only point. As mentioned earlier I am not against nuclear power especially inherently safe designs requiring no active components to prevent meltdowns all sounds quite reasonable to me. Fukushima was shit design - would be a mistake to use it as the poster child to prevent forward progress.

Reprocessing = plutonium = high proliferation risk. Not 1940's anymore must assume modern technology has significantly lowered barrier to successful implosion design.

The problem with nuclear fairy tales they sound great except for that one aspect you failed to consider that throws a wrench in the whole thing.

Personally would rather see solar + energy storage + conservation win out in the end but Nuclear is far better than nothing (e.g. Coal)

While I happen to think Nuclear on balance is a good deal this "no confirmed cancers" argument is garbage.

Humanity lacks capability to "confirm" cause of radiation caused cancers.

Determinations were hardly even possible in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only by use of statistics was anyone able to observe cancers at a rate some very small percentage ~1% above background.

In any scenario like Fukushima even statistics fail as radiation caused deaths sink well below any practically discernible noise floor.

People get burned when they think of IETF as means of legitimizing industry support for their particular approach. The IETF is *NOT* that. Most RFCs turn out to be worthless summarily ignored by real world in spite of all process hoops jumped through by WG participants and reviews.

Much better outcomes are realized when IETF is viewed not as a "standards committee" rather as a service no different than github... where instead of developing your own standards process you simply use IETF leeching off existing structure, facilities, recognition, meeting spaces... while not perfect it may well be better and or cheaper than rolling your own.

This means if you want to succeed you need a working implementation first and foremost, actual users in the real world ... "working code" without interested users and or industry partners IS NOT going to cut it. Then finally go to the IETF with your I-D + LEGION of faithful consensus building followers who support your ideas.

The IETF is like a country of mostly autonomous states (WGs) ... Some WG's are oppressive dictatorships taxing oxygen you breath while others are utopias of cooperation where consensus is not merely defined by whatever the chairs want to see... Unfortunately overall governance is not all that great. One of the running jokes for me is appeals process. Having subscribed to IETF announce a millennia ago have never once read or heard of even a single appeal that was ever upheld...ever. This has grown into something of a game to be careful to check before pushing delete in the off chance hell may some day actually freeze over.

In short if you come looking for the IETF to instill legitimacy upon your idea or approach you WILL leave disappointed.

If you come to the IETF from a position of strength willing to put up with some process bullshit you stand a chance of coming out ahead.

...sigh... CCA rating is defined by maintenance of rated amperage for *30 seconds* at 0 degrees F @ 1.2v/cell.

More nonsense some CPUs easily pull more than 200 amps... how are they doing it? Where are the half inch thick motherboards and 0 gauge pins?

Intel recently moved VRMs ***on die*** for haswell CPUs. How is this possible if as you say such components must be huge to handle in this case a hundred amps give or take at low voltage?

From what I understand it takes a while to fully soak current into the battery after charge completes.

Yep must be a conspiracy. You seem to know best/everything.

Checked the battery label before posting. I don't know exactly what the voltage is if different than what is printed on the battery and in this case I don't care. 10 watts 8.4 watts... 10 is a good enough approximation.

Absolutely not. Nobody but yourself is talking about wire size for 100% duty cycle transmission over any distance. Look under the hood of an average vehicle you likely have 2 to 4 gauge wire from battery to engine. How many amps get pulled when starting a vehicle? Several hundred typically. What is the CCA rating printed on your vehicles battery? 600? 800? more?

Your one inch diameter figure is wrong by well more than an order of magnitude for this specific application.

Normally wire is sized to have at most 3% voltage drop across total wire length. Longer the wire the more resistive loss. Wire length would be nil in this case as would the 3% rule. At 30 seconds load time you can safely tolerate more heating than constant application. Wiring comparison is apples and oranges.

Secondly you rely on an assumption battery voltage is necessarily the same as charge voltage which is false.

Create a separate folder for each type of 'key' copying 'POST' data to files in these folders using filename as key for ... umm... lightning fast retrieval.

U should then totally think about creating other directories full of symbolic links rather than files enabling you to have many keys for reference or even generate materialized views without duplicating data.

Since you would be using a query language that is not SQL it is guaranteed to scale to infinity and beyond... (inodes sold separately)

Is there anyone on the planet using TLS heartbeats via TCP for anything except exploiting this bug? What is even the point of heartbeats without DTLS?

Bugs are bugs yet decision to enable a mostly useless feature for non-DTLS by default in my view is not so easily excusable.

The difference is in battery voltage vs service voltage. (Power = volts * amps)

Lets assume smartphone battery operates at 5 volts. (mine does anyway)

5 volts * 2 amps = 10 watts

Now lets see how much power you get from a typical wall plug in US drawing those same 2 amps.

120 volts * 2 amps = 240 watts

24 times power from wall plug vs battery at same amperage.

Power is available.. question is selection of voltage allowing for desired charge rate while optimizing design/safety/cost constraints.

Every failure, mistake or design induced error you can't explain can quite often be blamed on malice. In the absence of detailed evidence there is almost always a path whereby evil human action can cause result x.

See also blame the compiler, lucky cosmic ray strike on wrong program bits, faulty hardware, magic dragons, unicorns, god.

When reasoning about what could happen when you don't really have any evidence it is important to appreciate the dangers of invoking explanations that could plausibly apply in just about any situation.

Devices like hanlon's razor exist to protect us from jumping to what are more often than not both easy and incorrect conclusions.