What really annoys me is Apple EOLed the iPhone 8 and then came out with a virtually identical SE version. Of course they soon discontinued the SE too…
Maybe they updated the CPU slightly but screen and camera were identical.
I would have kept my iPhone 8 if they kept updating the software. Yet somehow they can manage update the SE software despite looking the same as the iPhone 8…
I know there is a cost and overhead toward supporting old platforms. But for the premium on these devices and the level of waste generated, manufacturers can still do better…
I’d prefer no new features and only security updates… perhaps I’m weird.
Look doesn’t matter but they seem to be supporting exactly the same feature set as before.
They aren’t trying to support all the flashy stuff done on newer models… Hence, it seems like they could have easily made it work on the older models but chose higher profits instead.
Not weird. The last few os updates have made my phone laggy and slow. I want security updates, i don’t want new features that kill my battery life and usability.
The first example I looked at was haute-sorne.ch, which is reported by this tool as "Self hosted/other". Whilst it's true that they appear to self host, https://mails.haute-sorne.ch will land you on a Microsoft Exchange server, patch level 15.2.1748.39.
This is better than typical, being an October 2025 patch. But that leaves open CVE-2025-64667, CVE-2025-64666 and CVE-2026-21527. Which are vulnerabilities with patches out going back months.
Now are these RCEs? No, but this was also the first example I looked at.
Like Aeugst am Albis reports self-hosted, with: "MS365 tenant detected: Managed". But what I don't see, is other cloud office solution providers. Like, it's either hyperscalers or "self hosted". Why no cloud, sovereign even, alternatives?
Edit: there are (Infomaniak...), it was just Firefox json search who failed me :)
MX in Swiss/Europe does not mean it is not Google or Microsoft. Just checked out the French equivalent linked above, it says things like "MX for outlook.com in European Union [green checkbox]"
That’s been my exact experience in each of my 5 occasions.
I also once semi-fainted while standing up. Felt unusually calm and care free as my head bashed against a nearby object. Fortunately it wasn’t serious.
I have a fondness for the idea that the brain is like a radio reciever for a greater flow of the universe. Thus brain damage is like a broken antenna. The radio can die but the signal continues.
That said, we do then to attribute a lot of thinking to the technology of the time. Buddhists had their wheel of time, folks today think we live in a computer simulation. Things like that, so best not to take the idea too seriously.
Remember, life is too important to take seriously.
eventfd always pays a syscall on both sides (~200-400ns) regardless of load. Tachyon slow path only kick in under genuine starvation: the consumer spins first, then FUTEX_WAIT, and the producer skips FUTEX_WAKE entirely if the consumer still spinning. At sustainable rates the slow path never activates.
> eventfd always pays a syscall on both sides (~200-400ns) regardless of load.
It’s fairly standard to make the waiting side spin a bit after processing some data, and only issue another wait syscall if no more data arrives during the spin period.
(For instance, io_uring, which does this kind of IPC with a kernel thread on the receiving side, literally lets you configure how long said kernel thread should spin[1].)
Fair point. The real difference is the narrower: with a futex the producer can inspect consumer_sleeping directly in shared memory and skip the FUTEX_WAKE entirely if the consumer is still spinning. With eventfd you need a write() regardless, or you add shared state to gate it, which is essentially rebuilding futex. Same idea but slightly less clean.
The SLAAC/DHCPv6 combo seems really strange to me.
Either IP/DNS/gateway discovery with one or the other could be tolerable. But allowing combinations such as SLAAC for addressing and DHCP for DNS discovery is lunacy.
It’s as if one said, let’s take the most basic and critical step and make it as complicated as possible and explore the combinatorial explosion…
The article mentions that DHCPv6 was an afterthought because DHCP itself barely existed when IPv6 was being designed - they were still using things like RARP or BOOTP!
The article does seem to simultaneously claim that IPv6’s design is the result of wierd no longer current pressures but also that it’s perfectly fine and correctly designed.
Half related: reminds me of my physics teacher's test of how observant we were. The extra credit question on the test was "what is your teacher's favorite color?", which she had so far given no indication of. But while watching us she was walking all over the room in every possible direction, because the answer was on a piece of paper taped to her back.
My dad had a class in medical school where the professor dipped his finger in a beaker, talked about mechanisms for sugar in diabetic patients’ urine, and then proceeded to stick his finger in his mouth. He had all of the students do the same, who noted that the sugar was apparent.
He concluded the class by talking about the importance of observing patients, and pointed out that he had tasted a different finger than the one he had put in the beaker.
reply