Good point. It opens a SSH tunnel from Pinggy server to your localhost, such that the pinggy server can connect to only the port of your localhost that you specify in the command. The ssh port forwarding command is a standard one and your ssh client ensures that the access is restricted to the port you are specifically exposing.
In other words, you are trusting your own system and your ssh client installation for security, which is more trustworthy than a random executable app downloaded from the internet.
We will include an explanation in the next version of our landing page. Appreciate your feedback!
What are the implications of SSHing into some random server? Could you also add some instructions on the kind of precautions one should take before ssh into pinggy
The implication of the ssh port forwarding command is that pinggy is able to connect to the port you are specifying. For example 8000. Then Pinggy and through pinggy anyone who visits the public URL can connect to port 8000 (through HTTP requests).
On the bright side, at least the part you're running is off-the-shelf parts whose implications you can more or less figure out by consulting the man page. Other services in this space are trying to convince you to run their own binary blobs.
In professional contexts as a software developer you will manage just fine with just English. Free time context and true integration to society will require learning Finnish. But you can take your time with that.
I think the challenge with going freelancer will be with the things that are required of you as a corporate entity. Such as, reading up on legislation, accounting rules, dialog with tax office etc.
Not everything is in English. Prime example of that is establishing a limited liability online. Nothing impossible to tackle, but just that if things were in English and smooth, maybe I wouldn't have bothered with writing the guide :) It is troubling at times, which is why I wanted to smoothen it out as much as possible.
Curious what ”The cycle removal algorithm only uses the reference counts and the object content” means in practice. Is it based on some well known algorithm?
From the description it's probably a Bacon cycle collector. The basic idea is that it checks to see whether reference counts for all objects in a subgraph of the heap are fully accounted for by other objects in that subgraph. If so, then it's a cycle, and you can delete one of the edges to destroy the cycle. Otherwise, one of the references must be coming from "outside" (typically, the stack) and so the objects cannot be safely destroyed. It's a neat algorithm because you don't have to write a stack scanner, which is one of the most annoying parts of a tracing GC to write.
It's a form of protest. If both flatMap and smooshMap are seen as equally "breaking the web", maybe TC39 will coose the less insane name for the method.
Im my opinion the biggest problem is the data model (or lack of). Tags i.e. key-value pairs are used to add properties to geometry. Mappers use different combinations of keys/values to describe the same thing. The post touches on this, but does not offer solutions other than adding "layers".
There should be a strict schema that would be community managed through some process.
Like what, tag proposals where people vote yay or nay? We have those. As an active mapper, I very rarely find two ways of tagging the same thing, so the process seems to work fine.
And if you do find a situation where there are multiple options, it takes only a quick check on taginfo to find the more commonly used one. If you go with that, it should converge soon.
Currently there is nothing to stop mappers using tags in wrong ways. It should just be flat out impossible. If a field/tag isn't defined in the schema, it could not be used. The range of values should be limited in the same way, too.
Ah, I see where you're going with this. It would slow innovation down to a trickle, though. Anyone who wants to do something that's not yet standardized would have to stash their edits somewhere and wait for official approval. And that would likely take weeks or months at best. Currently, the best idea wins automatically because good ideas are used by both mapping applications and mappers.
Maybe something in the middle, like the current wiki system but with an enforcement rule of whatever is on the wiki. Anyone could freely edit it because it's a wiki (adding allowed options, and removing/changing any that have extremely few uses (zero, or perhaps a few which are then removed)), but at least there is a correct spec.
If people really had to adhere to a strict, slow-moving standard with pre-approval, the spec would also become extremely complex and very difficult to implement, because the spec-makers will want to think of every eventuality. See any other large specification ever, like HTML or something. I can't see that ending well. I think a hybrid system might be better than a strict one, given the choice between those two.
I like thinking about it though! Always good to have hear ideas.
Which is great only if you have all the right tags. A grain bin is not a silo - to a farmer this is an important distinction - the rest of the world cannot tell the difference, both are round towers.
No it's not, in April they both talked about a modular Mac Pro which would ship "not this year" (the iMac Pro is slated to ship in December), and they did specifically refer to this iMac Pro:
> “great” new iMacs in the pipeline, slated for release “this year”, including configurations specifically targeted at large segments of the pro market.
Yes, the s-expression format has become awkward. There are differences between the s-expression format in the test suite, what browsers will show, and what tools support.
You can think of the old s-expression format as a language that compiles into wasm, a language that is an AST and that happens to have the same types and operations etc. as wasm.
