With a decent editor, hand-rolling <li> and <ul> tags ain't too bad. With a good scriptable editor, hand-unrolling the different options is also surprisingly easy.
I agree. In this specific case, assuming the author had to type-out (or paste) the actual contents of the list, then "hand-rolling" it into a HTML list using a decent editor will be less (probably much less) work than plugging in all that JS cruft.
And, it only happens once, instead of wasting a tiny bit of electricity for computing the exact same thing for every visitor.
They'll still get hit hardest. Weak pound means more expensive imports. UK imports ~40% of it's food [1]. That food will now cost more to import raising prices at the supermarkets. Poorer people spend a larger %'age of their income on essentials like food.
The weak pound means importing oil (priced in USD) will be more expensive. This will affect Petrol prices (we're already seeing a 2-3p rise at the pumps). Poorer people spend a larger %'age of their income on essentials like fuel.
There are a number of knock-on effects from the weak pound. Yes it's good for exports but overall it's going to be a rough couple of years for the already disadvantaged.
Speaking to your point on competition as well - if the UK wishes to join the EU free market they will most likely need to accept freedom of movement. No treaty has ever been agreed with any country without this caveat (that covers the Swiss, Norway etc). It's possible that the UK may be an exception but it's unlikely.
Much like Russia (which suffered a much worse currency slump and also imports a lot of food), the UK will likely roll with it and engage in import substitution.
>Speaking to your point on competition as well - if the UK wishes to join the EU free market they will most likely need to accept freedom of movement.
That's clearly the deal the remainers wanted to take but if I recall correctly they lost.
At the low end I'm pretty sure the wage rises coming from fewer Poles, etc. will at least match - and possibly outstrip inflation caused by newly instituted 2-4% tariffs.
Have you read the linked article? The leave campaigners are now furiously back-pedalling on their claims about reduced immigration. I'm intrigued as to why you think there'll be "fewer Poles etc.".
Where are these extra jobs going to come from with a rock bottom pound and markets in freefall? Do you believe this was a vote about repatriation or something?
I didn't read it that way. Boris trying to characterize the campaign as being pro-control rather than anti-immigration seems to be an attempt to extend an olive branch to the remainers rather than an attempt to do a 180 on immigration.
He is about to enter a leadership contest and is hoping for votes from tory members of the remain campaign.
He might do a 180 on immigration but I wouldn't say this is evidence of it, and he likely knows he'll pay a heavy price come next elections if he does (assuming he wins leadership).
The other guy who actually is backpedaling is just an MEP whom I'm pretty sure nobody gives a fuck about.
Boris was only in it to become PM. In the metro yesterday Boris was quoted as to saying "the 'only change' the public would see post-brexit was greater control of uk laws".
hmac.compare_digest is constant time whereas == will return as soon as a mismatch is found. The difference in return time can be measured. The key phrase is a Timing Attack[0].
Here's a discussion on that[0]. Depending on how you do it you either weaken it to the strength of the weakest algorithm or alternatively gain nothing but may introduce a weakness. It's basically a bad idea.
The arguments in that Q&A look suspect to me - they don't seem to be explicit in what a hash needs to defend against, and as a result, any downside is an argument to avoid a strategy, even if that downside is much less relevant than some other upside.
The top voted answer has a comment that's spot on:
I would offer the opposite argument: if one uses a single hashing function which has a 0.1% chance of having a discoverable weakness that would allow an attacker to speed it up by a factor of a million, there will be a one-in-a-thousand chance that an attacker will be able to gain a million-fold speedup. If one used three independent functions, each of which had a 0.1% chance of allowing such a breakthrough, there would be a 0.3% chance of an attacker being able to achieve a 33% speedup, a 0.0003% chance of an attacker getting a 66% speedup, and only a 0.0000001% chance of an attacker... – supercat Jul 13 '15 at 17:21
...getting a million-fold speedup. I would consider the possibility of an attacker getting a 33% speedup as inconsequential compared to the reduction in the probability of the attacker getting a 70%-or-better speedup. – supercat Jul 13 '15 at 17:22
In short: You lose on average (but who care?) but you reduce the risk of catastrophic failure.
Sadly not. The US courts have already ruled that data held in other data centres are fair game for a US warrant [1]. In this case the data is held in the EU (in Dublin, Ireland to be precise) and MS was found in contempt of court for failing to hand the data over [2]. They're still fighting this case now - over a year later - and it's currently in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals [3].
This means that the precedent is already set. If the company operates in the US and is served a warrant, the US Govt wants ALL of the data WHEREVER it's held.
I'm rooting for MS on this one and hope their appeal is upheld.
Here's the paper[1] from the University of Toronto showing that the attack originated from the Great Firewall. Given the firewall is operated by the Ministry of Public Security that points the finger pretty clearly at the government. The way the attack was orchestrated implies however that Baidu was an unwitting victim.
It terms the system that carried out the attack as "the Great Cannon" and then moves on to attribute "the Great Cannon" to the Chinese government in Section 4.
As "compelling" as it sounds, the "attribution" in Section 4 seems rather short and lacking technical details and proper references as compared to other sections (Also I would not consider references from GreatFire as legitimate). So I am not fully convinced about that section.
Anyway thanks for sharing this. I definitely picked up a lot from this article.
[1] http://zeroenergyproject.org/2017/07/24/simple-techniques-lo...