Client sees a clean disconnect and I guess assumes thats the entire file?

The client has been SIGKILLed, so it’s not assuming anything. I wonder whether the comment is a typo and they meant to kill -9 the server instead.

Perhaps a permanently hung connection because timeout is zero (=disabled?)?

Seems plausible since FIN only means “I’m done sending” also called a “half close”.

FTP has different data and command connections so the server may not have an outstanding read to detect the data connection break.

But.. it should still clean up both when the command connection dies

Hypothetically if this was HTTP without a Content-length (like it used to be in the olden days), you could have a proxy server assume this is the entire file.

Canadians generally think that buying and selling their information is illegal so it's not happening, which is why this is news.

They're right that it's illegal but definitely wrong about it not happening.

The damage to privacy from this is likely much less then the average person realizes.

(an American living in Canada's perspective)

The issue is that battery packs tend to fail abruptly, one cell in one module goes bad completely.

So the worn out packs almost all have bad cells as well.

Its expensive to repair them because of how much dangerous manual labor is involved.

SFO has no line for business class or high status travelers. (they have pre and clear).

That's the only difference.

Do other airports have? The only ones that I have been to (that have separate Customs and Security lines for Business Class travelers) are in India and Middle East. I have never seen a separate line anywhere in Canada or US.

Most large US airports do (although it’s a little more subtle than in Asia/middle east).

It’ll also usually be branded “priority” or “premium” with the dominant airline for that airport/terminal (eg. Sky Priority or Premier Access).

Large airports like SFO, DEN and LAX have all combinations of CLEAR/PreCheck/Premium. Smaller ones only have some (ie. premium line doesn’t have precheck or clear).

The only airport I’ve been to recently that I don’t recall having a line like that was Bozeman.

That might be dependent on terminal.

Terminal 3 definitely has a United “Premier Access”/Star Alliance Gold line.

Not true; T3 has one, at least. I don't recall for the other terminals, but I'd be surprised if not. That sort of thing is mostly up the the airlines, though, no?

I never use it, though... the pre check line is usually as fast or faster.

You should take note that this is written by the person that wrote the bad patch.

So grain of salt.

I've said I'm not sure about the validity of that reasoning.

I've liked it nevertheless for context, as augmentation to parent's post.

I feel like it should be possible to fulfill these advantages with a minimal, not very complex API. I.e. the grandparent's comment about IPsec implementation details doesn't make the cut, but a hardware accelerated cipher implementation does.

A hardware accelerated DMA-capable cipher implementation is an odd thing, and it’s generally not useful on its own. You might want to set up a whole chain of operations (encrypt, checksum, send to network, for example), but I’ve never encountered a case where you actually want to ask an accelerator to asynchronously encrypt application data and return the encrypted data to the application.

Unless you're pushing a ton of extra work into a network-capable accelerator, that sounds exactly like what you'd want for, e.g., an encrypted S3 implementation. You have encryption, RS encoding, striped checksumming, sending fragments to multiple hosts, some sort of potentially interesting partial failure handling, etc.

You could push that all down to the accelerator, but if there are even a few such use cases you might want a dedicated DMA-capable implementation instead.

But is it true or not? Whoever wrote it. (for objective truth the subjects are unimportant)

It might have been true in 2002 but it hasn't been true since at least about 2010.

You've almost certainly never had a system that supported any hardware accelerated crypto that also required a kernel module.

It's much easier to expose as cpu extensions.

When you can’t know the objective truth or when there isn’t one (as is the case in making decisions about security tradeoffs in software design), knowing the source of the argument is vital to interpreting its validity.

I disagree 100%. Software security tradeoffs are definitely the sort of thing where you can evaluate arguments on their merits.

The decision 158 years ago that an activity could be banned through taxation was obviously in error.

Ah yes a completely centralized system that scales, who would have thought.

(For the pedantic, it's not exactly centralized nor federated since each airline treats their view of the world as absolutely correct)

It’s not decentralized either, at least not in the Bitcoin sense of the word. Interactions between participants may be automated but they can ultimately rely on legal contracts and people. IATA is one of those participants, but everyone has to trust IATA in the airline industry because of their role. A decentralized airline system built to avoid trust in a central authority would be pretty different (actually the booking part may be the least of their problems there).

It probably doesn’t require consensus among all participants (pairwise consensus at every step should be fine), so there is very likely no voting.

It’s not even permissionless. It’s not like a random company could join this “chain” simply because they can generate a keypair.

It’s a fundamentally different problem, and it makes sense that the architecture is different.

Presumably there just isn't that much use for that anymore.

Most remotes seem to be RF not ir these days.

Especially given the hardware has no moat and there are a zillion IR transceivers on Aliexpress. It's not a good market.

Did you reach out to the mine directly?

likely they switched because of the time, but if your model could help reduce the time I bet they wouldn't have switched

I bet the decision had been made many months before. If they had started operations already they would have needed to invest probably millions in the equipment purchase, worker training, and so on. IIRC I had asked my prof and he didn't seem to be interested in investing the effort into presenting our findings, but never really elaborated further.

Kind of fun thinking back, but hopefully they weren't betting the farm solely on some university professor's at-his-pace work.