I think certificates for IP addresses can be useful.

However, if Let‘s encrypt were to support S/MIME certificates, it would have a far greater impact. Since a few years, we have an almost comical situation with email encryption: Finally, most important mail user agents (aka mail clients) support S/MIME encryption out of the box. But you need a certificate from a CA to have a smooth user experience, just like with the web. However, all CAs that offer free trustworthy¹ S/MIME certificates with a duration of a year or more² have disappeared. The result: No private entities are using email encryption.

(PGP remains unused outside of geek circles because it is too awkward to use.)

Let‘s encrypt our emails!

¹ A certificate isn‘t trustworthy if the CA generates the secret key for you.

² With S/MIME you need to keep your old certificates around to decrypt old mails, so having a new one frequently is not practical

Yeah I wish GitHub supported these

Interesting, I wasn't familiar with this feature.

I'm a big fan of conventional commits, and trailers seem like a better way of adding such metadata.

Is adding them manually to the commit message functionally equivalent to using the `--trailer` flag?

I always felt unwrap is preferable for diagnosing issues, which makes it useful in tests. A failed unwrap will point you directly to the line of code which panics, which is much simpler than trying to trace an issue through many layers of Results.

If you use `assert` in tests, I don't understand why you wouldn't also prefer unwrap in this context.

I think it's also perfectly reasonable to use in a context like binary you run locally for private consumption, or for instance a serverless function which allows you to pinpoint the source of errors more easily in the logs.

It's not a good fit for cases where you do expect cases where the unwrap will fail, but it's a great fit for cases where you believe the unwrap should always succeed, as it allows you to pinpoint the cases where it fails.

I wrote a paper on REBOL back in college. It is very interesting, but the syntax is definitely weird. You might think of the function call syntax as being sort of Forth-like, but with the tokens in reverse order. So like a Lisp, but without required parentheses. e.g. in the example

  send friend@rebol.com read http://www.cnn.com

`read` knows that it takes one argument, and `send` knows that it takes two, so this ends up being grouped like

  (send friend@rebol.com (read http://www.cnn.com))

(which I think is valid syntax; that AST node is called a 'paren').

Weirdly, the language also has some infix operators, which seem a bit out-of-place to me. I have no idea how the 'parser'[1] works.

[1] 'parsing' happens so late that it feels funny to call it that. The thing that knows how to treat an array as a representation of an evaluatable expression and evaluate it.

Reminds me of people where I worked having vanity GPG key ids. I'm wondering how much CPU time and on what machines it took to find them.

Rumor is Samsung won't support Google's Linux Terminal (at least for their existing phones) since their Knox conflicts with the Android Virtualization Framework :-(.

Honestly I'd like to see Windows 11 running under this as well, but that seems incredibly unlikely.

Given that the CFO encouraged Cook to violate the court order tells me that they calculated that

1. Any fines for not complying would be less than what they would lose by complying

2. That no individual would suffer any consequences for blatantly disobeying a court order.

In my opinion, the whole concept that a company can break the law but no human can be held responsible is insane.

I really hope that criminal charges are brought against those involved in making a conscious choice to both lie to the court and ignore the court order. Hopefully that will make other executives think twice when put in the same situation.