Most flight WiFi networks don't block DNS traffic, so if you set up a custom DNS server, you can tunnel everything through DNS. It's slow, but it's free internet!
I once found out on a plane ssh wasn't blocked even if I wasn't paying so I just used a remote vps that I had already setup as a socks proxy to browse the web.
how about spinning up a wireguard server on udp/53 and connect to it with wireguard client. I haven't tried it myself but it could work. Gonna try it next time I am going to fly
That name seemed familiar, but had to really dig into my memories; alas, I still love your cover of Monte Re on the Baglamas [1]!. Wishing you all the best with ente!
Did not expect to see this! This was recording during Ente's early days, and that was a very special time. Thank you for jogging my memories, and thank you for the wishes. You're very kind :)
I've thought of this before, and it makes a lot of sense! Sometimes one can write a seemingly "correct" proof, but there may be gaps in the argument that isn't obvious until someone else looks at it. Heck, even professional mathematicians get it wrong sometimes.
Another thought I've had to help solve this issue is to supplement learning mathematics with formal methods. Using something like Lean, one may make a mathematical argument that is truly airtight and the student may feel at ease knowing their understanding of a proof is complete. This could be the feedback loop that you mentioned.
I once changed my Gmail password and promptly forgot it. When I was trying to recover it, I had no MFA set up (I had a yubikey, but somehow that wasn't allowed???), so the only option left for me was to provide them with the month and year I created the account. Since it was roughly a 10 year old account, I had no idea what those numbers were. There was also no way to reach out to an actual human for help through their account recovery workflow. I ended up creating a Twitter bot that would tweet at one or two of the handles owned by Google, once a day. After about a week, I had someone reach out, and I was finally able to prove that I actually owned the account and recover it. It was definitely a stressful time.
It could be because I wasn't spamming them with tweets i.e. I only sent them about 14 tweets total between their two handles over the course of a week, but I can see how they might've blocked someone else doing the same.
> Also, would this be affected by the latest changes at Twitter?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with those changes, so I'm not sure.
My favorite short story from Italo Calvino is The Distance of the Moon. RadioLab did an episode with it being read by Liev Schreiber [1] and it's wonderful! I believe it partly inspired a Disney Pixar short by the name La Luna [2].
I have argued that C’s enduring popularity is wrongly ascribed to performance concerns; in reality one large component of it (the “application” component) owes to decades-old gaps in migration and integration support among proposed alternatives; another large component of it (the “systems”component) owes to a fundamental and distinctive property of the language which I have called its communicativity, and for which neither migration nor integration can be sufficient. I have also argued that the problems symptomatic of C code today are wrongly ascribed to the C language; in reality they relate to its implementations, and where for each problem the research literature presents compelling alternative implementation approaches. From this, many of the orthodox attitudes around C are ill-founded. There is no particular need to rewrite existing C code, provided the same benefit can be obtained more cheaply by alternative implementations of C. Nor is there a need to abandon C as a legitimate choice of language for new code, since C’s distinctive features offer unique value in some cases. The equivocation of “managed” with “safe”implementations, and indeed the confusion of languages with their implementations, have obscured these points. Rather than abandoning C and simply embracing new languages implemented along established, contemporary lines, I believe a more feasible path to our desired ends lies in both better and materially different implementations of both C and non-C languages alike. These implementations must subscribe to different principles, emphasising heterarchy, plurality and co-existence, placing higher premium on the concerns of (in application code) migration and interoperation, and (in the case of systems code) communicativity. My concrete suggestions—in particular, to implement a“safe C”, and to focus attention on communicativity issues in this and any proposed “better C”—remain unproven, and perhaps serve better as the beginning of a thought process than as a certain destination. C is far from sacred, and I look forward to its replacements—but they must not forget the importance of communicating with aliens.
