A great QoL change. One less place to duplicate (and potentially mistake) a config.

More accurate: US missile capable of < 5 meters of accuracy hits Iranian school 200m away from military base, according to BBC.

My reply is that, strictly speaking, it is not a reimplementation of a network protocol if you need to recreate parts of the game based on best guesses that _impact_ the gameplay if your guess is wrong/different. A game is more than a network protocol. It is the data within that makes it to you that is being emulated.

SMB3 is SMB3. I would probably classify SMB1 (proprietary, closed) implementations as emulators if the guesses resulted in differing functionality from client<>server to another client<>server.

I think the distinction is a lot greyer than the black/white you propose.

The very first popular online games used servers mostly to redistribute (and maybe time sync) packets from clients. There is no standard way to to do that. Player-created servers did their best to emulate the official servers logic but it was indeed impossible to replicate it perfectly.

e.g. when breaking up large maps into sectors, the official server might broadcast your location and projectiles X units away and emulators would broadcast it X + 500 units away, which could have an impact on gameplay.

Emulator feels fitting when there is no official server spec to reimplement.

edit: emulator also feels appropriate where servers are responsible for NPC activity or quest-like mechanics. This goes beyond implementing a network protocol. The gameplay is massively impacted.

This endeavour sounds a whole lot like a server emulator for Infantry Online that was started by an incredibly talented developed 16 years ago ("aaerox"). I found the original svn commit on Sourceforge [1]. It's since moved to GitHub but has been active for 16 years and it has much of the same functionality you've already built, but done by more than a dozen developers over a decade-and-a-half.

Kudos to you. You've gotta explain how you've managed to do so much all by yourself.

[0] https://github.com/moongate-community/moongatev2/graphs/cont... [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/infserver/code/1/

From a purely UX perspective, showing a red badge seems you’re conflating “less good” with size. Who is the target for this? Lots of useful codebases are large.

I do agree, however, that there’s value in splitting up domains into something a human can easily learn and keep in their head after, say, a few days of being deeply entrenched. Tokens could actually be a good proxy for this.

I’ve read my fair share of LLM slop. This doesn’t qualify.

I can understand why [ is not ideal. Can you explain the rest to me? I use || true for custom error handling often (with the right set -euo pipefail of course)

When you applied for a bank account for your freelancing business (or startup idea), some people googled you, looked for PEPs (politically exposed persons) in your family, stored photos of your IDs and probably even printed them off, and sent everything in a nice package to some "risk" department. Who knows how that department is handling your data.

The only difference is that Persona is trying to put a front-end on it and selling the process as a SaaS. Look up "KYC/KYB saas" and you'll find hundreds of businesses doing this (including, of course, Persona).

edit: I want to emphasize that this isn't restricted to just business banking. Poor wording on my part. Lots of industries are legally mandated to conduct KYC/IDV. Notaries do it in home sales, your stock brokerage is doing it, employers in regulated industries do it to everyone on payroll. The list is very long. Unfortunately...

The government should take on responsibility for KYC imo, instead of letting 100 vendors come up with their own solutions. But that would probably have some nasty externalities.

The differences in proclaimed data retention periods is concerning though. The rest is par for the course for KYC/AML.

But all the better if they do!

I tried my hardest to read this with good intentions and I finished it. I thought the "20m read" label at the top was exaggerated given the size of my scrollbar. But it did indeed take a while.

This website is (1) saying nothing of substance, and (2) impossible to read. While the actual content of the article isn't worth discussing, this is a great example of what bad writing looks like. There's not a single paragraph in sight.

# Kitschy Heading

## n. Another Editorialized Heading

A table that is very hard to parse

* tons of bullet points

What an arrogant take. This is preference. Don’t mistake it for correctness.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47044754

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

It’s disheartening how underfunded these agencies are compared to, what feels like at least, the severity of the crimes they’re up against.

These folks are heroes. This is one place AI has a lot of potential (but very little commercial value).