Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mnot's commentslogin

You can bind sites to containers in safari.


Took another look at this and it looks like you can set a profile to use for a site in the website settings, Open Links With Profile settings. You have to visit first, but it does seem to work. Unfortunately still limited to a whole new window, which makes the whole thing rather awkward, but more useful that I thought.


Yeah the thing I love about container tabs is that they are tabs. I have so many containers, I don't want a separate window for each of them.


On iOS? How? I couldn’t find any documentation on it?


Chrome's cache is indeed acting correctly. Effectively, it is acting as an intermediary here - your application made a partial content request, and it can satisfy it (partially), so it sends you a 206.

HTTP partial content responses need to be evaluated (like any other response) according to their metadata: servers are not required to send you exactly the ranges you request, so you need to pay attention to Content-Range and process accordingly (potentially issuing more requests).

See: https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9110.html#status.206


But the Content-Range header and the Content-Length header both indicated the "expected" number of bytes e.g. the number of bytes that would have been returned if the server had given a 206 or a 200, not the truncated number of bytes that the response actually contained. Is that expected?

The latest response from the Chromium team (https://issues.chromium.org/issues/390229583#comment20) seems to take a different approach from your comment, and says that you should think of it as a streaming response where the connection failed partway through, which feels reasonable to me, except for the fact that `await`ing the response doesn't seem to trigger any errors: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/390229583#comment21


Shouldn't the response header returned by Chrome say "4-138724" then though, and not "4-1943507"? The synthesized response body doesn't include bytes "138725-1943507".


Ah - I need to remember to coffee before posting in the AM.

Yes, the mismatch between the response headers and the content is a problem. Unfortunately, IME browsers often do "fix ups" of headers that make them less than reliable, this might be one of them -- it's effectively rewriting the response but failing to update all of the metadata.

The bug summary says "Chrome returns wrong status code while using range header with caches." That's indeed not a bug. I think the most concerning thing here is that the Content-Range header is obviously incorrect, so Chrome should either be updating it or producing a clear error to alert you -- which it looks like the Chrome dev acknowledges when they say "it is probably a bug that there is no AbortError exception on the read".

I might try to add some tests for this to https://cache-tests.fyi/#partial


Looks like the cache intended to produce those bytes, got the 403 and thus was unable to, and interrupted the stream. Just like a lost connection.


No, it didn’t.


Damn, you're right, I was so overexcited about that that I misread https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-met.... It's still an Internet-Draft and only the intended status is Proposed Standard... I will try to fix the submission.


The embedded politics of the “t” in “tpm” and “tee” are super interesting and revealing. They are “trusted” only from the perspective of the developer; to the user, they represent the complete lack of trust.


On the contrary, it gives me various ways to determine that my laptop is in a trustworthy state before I type a password into it, and it makes it possible for Signal to verify that the server it's communicating with hasn't been tampered with. It can be used in ways that hurt the user, but it can also be used in ways that benefit them.


I've been lusting after an Ochs und Junior for a while now -- very clever and great design. Implementing complications like perpetual calendars off of workhorse calibres is just amazing.


Today, a group of technical experts involved in the development and maintenance of the Internet and the Web, including Vint Cerf (Internet pioneer) and Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the World Wide Web), published an open letter calling on the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General and the Secretary-General's Envoy on Technology to "uphold the bottom-up, collaborative and inclusive model of Internet governance that has served the world for the past half century" as part of the upcoming Global Digital Compact (GDC).


I think it's questionable whether they really have.

Especially the openness and bottom-up character of the W3C. They wanted closed source DRM running on people's computers despite presumably strong opposition from the bulk of the ordinary members, and then it got pushed through, and who knows what's in that software.

It's better than Chat Control I suppose, but it's the same sort of thing, i.e. foreign software doing who-knows-what running on a user device.


Today it is far too late.


You think that incompetence is evenly deployed no matter what the race of the accused?


I don't think incompetence is something that can be deployed evenly or not. The article provides no information that I can see that makes it a racist cop targeting a minority. Or is it racist for any first nation/aboriginal person to be subject to a police investigation?


Theoretically, incompetence can be unevenly deployed if you assign incompetent people more predominantly to specific regions or cases.


So theoretically the police chief is racistly deploying non-racist but known incompetent officers in the hopes their incompetence is going to adversely affect those specific regions or cases. That's leaving an awful lot to chance. I can think of more efficient and surefire ways to ensure those areas/cases are racially targeted, you could take Baltimore city as an example. But we're surely getting beyond any reasonable speculation of the information provided in the article?


I think they are saying not that it is some grand plan by racism at the highest level, but that it is people at the higher levels not caring about certain people and the justice they get.

People hear 'racism' and they think of that speech in the 60s 'segregation now, segregation forever' and firehoses, but it can be much more insidious than someone hating a subsection of people. It can be systemic in the sense that some people are not afforded the things most of us take for granted, like the protection of law, or due process of law, or innocence until guilt is proven, because there j isn't a will do it at the levels that matter.

Fictional example: a cop is a problem, he tends to be heavily aggressive in his actions but he is also stupid and unlikeable. People he works with complain and he pissed off some people in the district. District administrator decide it is easier to transfer him to bumfuck, where if there are any complaints they can ignore them because they have no political power or pull, rather than let him mess with people who have the ability to get the media or politicians involved.

This isn't even a conscious decision -- people in bumfuck don't complain because they are used to shitty treatment and no recourse, so they don't bother, whereas people like you or I would treat it as a travesty and get worked up and make a huge stink. The fact that it works like this makes it easy and the admin doesn't have to worry about it any more. Wash hands, done deal.


I can fully appreciate what you are saying. I'm not denying racism, (structural, systemic, or otherwise, conscious, unconscious) exists. Or that you fictional example might play out in reality. What I'm saying is that we can speculate until we are blue in the face, but based on the information in that article you can't simply conclude racism.


A good number of people here can read that article and incorporate a decade or more of past knowledge of reported interactions between the RCMP and indigenous communities in Canada.

Call it one part racism, three parts utter indifference, with an occasional dash of one or two exceptions actually giving a damn and attempting to do the right thing.

You're correct that no simple definite conclusion can be reached here on logic alone, however from context many can distinguish a hawk from a heronsaw given a favourable wind.


I think you have a good point. There are definitely historical wrongs that may influence someone's reading of a situation. Unconscious bias is a thing that we should all try and avoid, hard as is may be.


I get it, but your response regarding incompetence being weaponized to me demonstrated a reductive and unsophisticated understanding of the causes and effects in 'racism'[1]. I get that you were most likely being hyperbolic to make a point, but unfortunately many people who are not personally familiar with such things tend to think in that way.

I know that this is frustrating and sometimes can look very much like opportunistic virtue signaling, and many times it can be, but I would caution against immediately dismissing such claims when they are made and defended by parties that otherwise would not have reason to do so.

[1] I wish we had a different word that didn't have all the loaded connotations inherent in 'racism' especially with its use in the past as a excuse for slavery, but we don't...


I don't think I advocated anywhere about "weaponizied" incompetence. I believe I was arguing that weaponizied incompetence is far fetched. My whole point engaging here with the many people I have has been to bring it back to what we know from the information we have. I'm more than willing to accept racism is the primary factor if racism was at all obvious from the article or even further information provided. The initial post I was replying to was a blanket statement that the accused person was first nation/aboriginal so the incident was racist. What has followed is ever more far fetched reasons for why it might be racist but no information to say it is so.

I was enjoying reading what you'd previously written but changed, about domain knowledge and how domain experts can guess based on the outcome what was likely going on inside the system (EDIT: paraphrasing from memory, so I hope I got it right). I'd never thought about it like that before, very interesting perspective. But even then you'd have to be careful to make bloody sure your assumption, experience based though it is, was actually factually correct before tarring someone with racism.

I hope my interactions here don't coming off as me dismissing people concerns/claims. I'm simply trying to take an objective view of the situation as presented. I'm aware that some people consider objectivity a problem in and of itself.


Sorry for my edit but I didn't want to get into a conversation about something I am not actually comfortable trying to be an authority about. I realized I was reaching past what would be reasonable for me to represent in a substantive way.

I hope you understand my hesitancy in such a public medium, and I appreciate your feedback.


Definitely no need to apologise at all I can fully understand. I have edited my own responses in this conversation, given the topic, so as to show (I hope) I am being reasonable and open minded. I am myself no expert in these topics and can see that it's divisive enough for the reply button to be delayed in appearing on posts (I'm assuming for moderation purposes, though this might be something that always happens but I've never noticed before).

Either way I've enjoyed this discussion and have learned from it. I wish you all the best.


LOL. Do you know who you’re talking about?


Wait till you see the TCP RFCs…


I guess it helps that TCP is usually covered to some extent in an undergrad course, and also that it's unencrypted.


That's quite a lineup -- any MP who associates publicly with Barnaby Joyce is making a statement.

And Monique Ryan is already on thin ice -- can't help but wonder what the people of Kooyong think about her spending her time on this.


> And Monique Ryan is already on thin ice -- can't help but wonder what the people of Kooyong think about her spending her time on this.

She's a federal representative, not a state representative. I hope you apply such 'non-local' arguments to all federal representatives equally.


She's taking a break from her important work on getting Hard Solo taken off the shelves.


Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: