There are still some people there, and talking about stuff. It's very much like hacker news, but with much less people :)

> checklists often leaves a lot to be desired.

You say yourself that checklists are great, and it is proven that they save lives. So if there is fatigue in using them over and over, and they are not perfect, well... get over it? Sure i can understand that it's boring to go through the same checklist 5 times a day, but come on, there are lives at stake here. If one of your wife patients gets an infection and dies because she forgot some important, simple, step because of "checklist fatigue" how would she feel?

Is it so? I remember that in 2008 someone was able to create a rouge CA certificate because of the predictability of serial numbers[1]. It was a different time: we still used md5, but are you sure the limited entropy used to generate serial numbers does not pose any security risk?

[1]https://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/

- the Tuscany Region (e.g. O=Rete Telematica Regionale Toscana, etc.)

- the Piedmont Region (e.g. O=CSI Piemonte, etc.)

- central public government (eg. O=Bank of Italy, Ministry of Transports, etc.)

- major banks (e.g. O=Unicredit S.p.A., FinecoBank, etc.)

- large private companies (e.g. O=SNAM, Terna, Wind, etc.)

- chambers of commerce

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20573429

Points: 64

# Comments: 33

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1.10

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20231132

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

It is. One more statistical point: I started reading, saw that phrase, closed the tab and came here for the comments.

    const portsToTry = [
      80, 81, 88,
      3000, 3001, 3030, 3031, 3333,
      4000, 4001, 4040, 4041, 4444,
      5000, 5001, 5050, 5051, 5555,
      6000, 6001, 6060, 6061, 6666,
      7000, 7001, 7070, 7071, 7777,
      8000, 8001, 8080, 8081, 8888,
      9000, 9001, 9090, 9091, 9999,
    ];

Those tools are not meant for sender authentication. If you want that you would have to first share the senders pubkey with the recipient, and sign your message with the corresponding privkey.

Is this not already possible with tools like https://ssh-vault.com/ and (shameless plug) https://sshenc.sh/?

Those tools use the RSA keys to encrypt a symmetric key that is then used to encrypt the data, but the outcome is effectively the same. No?

I am no expert, and I think neither are you, so we are just making some small talk here, but: I think we don't have the tech to go all in on renewable. Solar is cool and all, but where do we store the energy? Batteries don't scale at a global level (for now). I mean look at Germany: they tried. They got off nuclear and now they emit more CO2 than when they started because they had to revert back to coal.

I see no easy solution to this. Not for now. And for sure it's not something like "let's just switch to wind and solar and we are good".

I live in Italy and delivery cost is like 2,50€. And it's the same if I order food just for myself or for 4 people. So I would say that the delivery cost is cheaper per person for families than for a single person.

I don't think so. Mozilla is not google, and apart from the mr. Robot error, that they apologized for, I am sure Mozilla is using it for making the browser better, and not to use you for targeted ads like the other browser maker does.

- multiple identities

- multiple accounts

- a very good search

- imap idle support

- nntp client

It could be better on a lot of aspects, like the ui looks a bit outdated (I use it on kde, so it does not integrate very well with the rest of the de), the search could use some more filters, and I can not sort folders in the left pane. But apart from that, it has all the bells and whistles a real email client needs to have to make it really useful.