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

It is the only blockchain where developers can use pre-built, customizable modules to create dynamic applications that aren't possible on other networks. Combined with optimizations to its core architecture and enhanced cross-chain interoperability, Injective offers a high-performance network, ready to efficiently and securely bring the global financial system on-chain.


Thinking about your MacBook show off ads while you are using it, and about Apple Ads. NO! Apple never does that. That's why I never use Samsung devices.


The source code of the Open Graph Protocol website had been archived by Facebook. I don't see any announcement about it. Is it still useful to implement it on the website?


User-agents are not make sence, because custom browsers can cosplay easily, just set the "good" user-agent. If some custom browsers have evil purpose, why it need show it off? Change user-agent is very easy.


Oddly enough, they simply don't do that. IDK why, but they don't. Also, there is a bit more to browser integrity check than just the user-agent. But, yeah. You'd be surprise how often I saw attacks get mitigated that were using some obviously bad UA. The attack themselves seemed sophisticated enough, but the UA was still a 12 version old IE UA string or "1337 browser 2000" or something dumb like that.


Everyone, do you know which server provider allows opening port 25?


do you think this site is ok, does it need something else?


Nice!


It has been standardized as RFC 8478 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8478) and Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Parameters (https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parame...) with name: zstd


"Despite use of the word "standard" as part of its name, readers are advised that this document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is being published for informational purposes only."

So, there's an RFC, but it is not standardized, per se. But close enough, for many uses.


It's as standard as most file formats get. The IETF reserves the phrase "Internet Standard" for certain very important protocols -- there's no place in the process for file formats.


The IETF has a Standards process, which develops new de jure standards and this just isn't one of those. Most products of the IETFs dozens of working groups (e.g. the replacement effort for CAT is being worked on by a group named kitten) will be Standards Track documents.

IETF working groups are perfectly capable of defining file formats, eg RFC 7468.

ZStandard wasn't developed using the IETF process, that's why it isn't on the IETF Standards Track. PNG likewise is not on the Standards track, whereas Ogg (the container format) is.


For an algorithm with "standard" in its name.

This gets more confusing my the minute.


It was intended to replace zlib/DEFLATE as the de facto standard of casual compression algorithms, so it makes some sense.


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

Search: