Viewing profile — dcousens
dcousens
HN member- Joined
- Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 3:14 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 46
- Public activity
- 20 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About dcousens
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #16627421
I think it depends on where you draw the line for the word "natural". If you include human behaviour, it is natural, but yes, otherwise it is typically known as "artificial selecti…
-
comment
Comment #15380680
Opposite experience here. Near 4-5x slower than actual HN for me.
- story
-
comment
Comment #14861520
Therefore, you could consider the "need" for this to happen in the first place, a "late-stage" flaw of capitalism. I think you agree with the OP?
-
comment
Comment #14643228
Maybe the data usage would have alerted the infected.
-
comment
Comment #14603475
This mirrored my confusion when `AES_cbc_encrypt` modified my IV data when _decrypting_.
-
comment
Comment #14568008
Easy. Vim doesn't get in my way.
-
comment
Comment #14202543
52 attempts first here, then 25 then 20... exactly the same thought process.
-
comment
Comment #13204593
How does a code base become so cumbersome, without someone signalling that there will be a price to pay?
- comment
-
comment
Comment #13143616
If you moved your scripts to 1st party, uMatrix wouldn't block it
-
comment
Comment #13129377
Honestly, just being able to "tick" each commit would be great. On https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/ it is common practice to include the commit hash in your approval comment so …
-
comment
Comment #12586779
I just use `notify-send` every 30 minutes... https://github.com/dcousens/dotfiles/blob/master/.xinitstatu... .
-
comment
Comment #12154939
The graph displayed of ECDSA duplicate r-value exploits shows 2 prominent "columns" of addresses, the latter of which was in April/May 2014. That latter column was directly related…
-
comment
Comment #12153114
That point when you realise you're responsible for the data in someones presentation.
- story
- story
- story
-
comment
Comment #8106310
You're not wrong. Thanks for pointing this out, thankfully the implementation already failed on a negative s value, but you're correct in that it wasn't definitive. I also whole-he…
-
comment
Comment #8102062
Its not really a bug, the operations after it would still be valid (it is almost immediately reduced to the field order), its just that those parameters would not be akin to the SE…