« first day (3148 days earlier)      last day (1862 days later) » 

8:52 AM
 
9:16 AM
morning
 
Hello!!
 
9:36 AM
Man, why does everything on the internet seem so slow today?
It's taking me five minutes to download a 1MB rufus executable from github servers
And I'm on a 24Mbps connection
 
9:53 AM
 
[USB1]
Write: 9.60 MB/s
Read : 18.00 MB/s

[USB2]
Write: 5.32 MB/s
Read : 27.09 MB/s
Which do you consider better for a bootable OS install?
 
@rahuldottech Choose the one with better read speed: USB2. The faster the read speed, the faster the disk can copy the files for installation.
 
@Deltik No, I'm going to be running the OS on the drive
An encrypted OS, at that
Ah, the great @Jou is here
 
10:08 AM
Oh, I see. I would still prefer USB2 for the much better read speed. You should try to minimize write workloads because USB flash drives tend to fail after too many writes.
 
The one with better read speeds ;p
 
@JourneymanGeek But won't the write speeds be the bottleneck with on-the-fly (en|de)cryption?
 
The write speeds will still be a bottleneck, regardless of encryption
 
You read the data, you decrypt it then you present it
 
10:10 AM
Okay then, thanks guys
 
Likewise you encrypt then write
 
V.7
Also, you can use some algo which will read to mem and decrypt it there instead of /tmp path
So, USB2
 
okokok
 
10:45 AM
Personally I think fde isn't the optimal strategy here
 
11:14 AM
urgh
Work machine just warned me there's updates it wants to install
I need to check it's not 1809... how can i tell?
 
good luck
 
lol
I just need to check what the pending update 'is'
Seems that's a difficult question to google for
 
shit oh bother! i opened windows update to check for you and it has started downloading 1809...
remind me why 1809 is bad...
 
1+8+9=18
1+8=9
I forgot what you call these kinds of numbers
 
11:26 AM
now i see.
 
@djsmiley2k and why don't you want 1809?
 
The intel driver is broken for the network card
Tho my work system is stuck on 1703, while everyone else with the same driver issue is on 1709, weird.
 
@rahuldottech integers
:P
 
11:53 AM
I nearly said 'whole'
 
i need another 9 upvotes to repcap again today
 
Bob
@Burgi 8*
 
@djsmiley2k Something something whole, something something that's what she said?
 
Lol
 
@Bob thanks :)
 
12:08 PM
@Burgi 7*
 
:D
 
Why does XAMPP take so long to install arghh
 
Why are you running xampp?
 
12:23 PM
@JourneymanGeek I need a portable and up-to-date wamp stack
XAMPP can easily be made portable, so...
 
i use XAMPP for local dev work
never in production
 
@Burgi ditto
@Burgi ok, explain this:
> It is also possible to add LOCK_NB as a bitmask to one of the above operations if you don't want flock() to block while locking.
What does "block" mean in this context?
Or like:
> By default, this function will block until the requested lock is acquired
 
idk what flock is
can anyone take a look at my PowerShell script? its not behaving like it should
 
@Burgi file locking? Never used it?
huh, ok then
 
i want it to append the HTTP status code to the end of each url
it freaks out when processing 404s
nvm, i'll ask on SO
 
12:45 PM
lol
-17
Q: This is seriously making me paranoid

user497822 App Version: 1.6.6.2 Device: Unknown (iPhone10,3) OS Version: Version 12.1.4 (Build 16D57)

 
12:58 PM
!!shamelessplug
 
@Burgi That didn't make much sense. Use the !!/help command to learn more.
 
0
Q: Handling 404 Errors in PowerShell

BurgiI have a huge list of blog URLs that I need to check the validity of. I've knocked together a script from this answer and from here. Here is my script: $siteURL='http://example.com/' $File = '.\urls.txt' $NewContent = Get-Content -Path $File | ForEach-Object { $_ $HTTP_Req...

 
> Action Required: Log in to Yahoo Mail to continue receiving emails
...I have a Yahoo email account?
Apparently I do
Which I've had for 11 years
Welp
 
pffft
 
@Burgi Why are you checking the 200 status? Seems like you're writing the same thing either way?
 
1:09 PM
yeah i've refactored that bit now
 
(my PS-fu goes as far as about one script I've ever written)
My guess would be the that status 404 is treated as an error (which I guess it is?), so an exception is thrown, so file doesn't get written to in those circumstances
(.Net) WebRequest docs don't mention this behaviour though
 
I might be being stupid, but isn't the if statement unneeded?

> If ($HTTP_Status -eq 200) {
" - 200"
}
Else {
" - " + $HTTP_Status
}
And so the problem isn't that 200 works
it's that you're not appending a int to a string when it's 200.
 
@djsmiley2k yeah i know, i've refactored now
 
Did you fix it also?
 
no
 
1:23 PM
So I think it's because you appending a int to a string.
 
14 mins ago, by bertieb
@Burgi Why are you checking the 200 status? Seems like you're writing the same thing either way?
 
/me bets even 200's now break
something something .toString() ?
 
2:18 PM
got it
 
3:05 PM
Was i right? :O
 
no
2
A: Handling 404 Errors in PowerShell

Mathias R. JessenIn order to handle a 404 response (and similar error responses), we need a bit of error handling code: ForEach-Object { $_ $HTTP_Request = [System.Net.WebRequest]::Create($siteURL + $_) try { $HTTP_Response = $HTTP_Request.GetResponse() } catch [System.Net.WebExcept...

 
Bob
lol, saw the q too late
 
I.... what's the point of that site? XD
 
4:03 PM
Also I suspect you'd need a quite large panel
 
That's on prod. On my (quite shitty) work PC, it takes 10s.
At first it was taking 30s, then it started taking 10s without any optimization (why?!?!?)
 
@djsmiley2k I will indeed
Not too expensive
 
@ThatBrazilianGuy Caching?
 
@DavidPostill No, I mean, on my dev env on my PC.
It's a quite large (4.5 GB) db that takes 30 ~45min to import.
I tried to replicate the prod env (1 containter for nginx, 1 for php-fpm + the actual app, 1 for db).
Then to eliminate suspects I trimmed it to 1 db container and 1 container with the app + apache
 
@ThatBrazilianGuy PC have caching as well you know ...
 
4:12 PM
Then I sniffed the network to identify the bottleneck at the mysql query level.
Ran that query on monday on my pc before leaving. Multiple times. It was taking ~30s, always.
Then yesterday morning I turn on my PC, ran the same query, 10s.
@djsmiley2k Autoplaying videos. One of its points, at least.
@DavidPostill Apparently this prod server has really shitty I/O.
I think I'll benchmark it.
 
5:01 PM
roar
 
5:36 PM
Got a weird issue that I cant really put in a single question on SU. I recently bought a new monitor to replace my previous one. The strange thing is that I can't turn off the new monitor when there is an active signal which means that I have to wait for my computer to go to sleep before I can turn of my monitor. It's driving me quite crazy.
I press the power button, but it just won't turn off. Pressing the same button, the same way once my pc is sleeping (or turned off), turns off the monitor.
How the hell do I troubleshoot this?
And just as usual, as soon as I type my question out I find a resource that tells me that I have to press the power button for 5 seconds before it turns off. reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/anrmjb/… Why oh why.
 
 
1 hour later…
6:47 PM
> I have to press the power button for 5 seconds before it turns off.
Eeeeeeewwwww
That would warrant me a return to factory.
Or at least a strong-word letter, social media ranting, head shaking and cloud yelling.
<hr>
Erm....
On my shitty 2013 non-SSD laptop:
/dev/sda:
Timing cached reads:   8676 MB in  2.00 seconds = 4340.46 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 246 MB in  3.01 seconds =  81.61 MB/sec
On the production server:
/dev/xvda2
 Timing cached reads:   13950 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6997.93 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  66 MB in  3.09 seconds =  21.37 MB/sec
Oooooooooookayyyyyyyy
So prod is 4x slower than my shitty laptop.
 
@ThatBrazilianGuy lol @ "shitty" (overloaded disks?)
 
It's a 500GB SATA HDD. You know, that stuff with moving heads, platters, slowness.
But apparently still better than a server used in production at my workplace. Four times better!
TFW the server you use is worse than consumer grade stuff from 2013.
 
lol
160 GB 5400 RPM disk, anyone?
10-year-old garbage hardware?
 
7:18 PM
So, what's the meaning of "cached reads" and "buffered disk reads" in this context?
 
turn it into a clock or PoV thing
 
Found the answer:
1
Q: Why cached reads are slower than disk reads in hdparm --direct?

Alejandro DCI am trying to interpret this result of hdparm: janus@behemoth ~ $ sudo hdparm -Tt --direct /dev/nvme0n1 /dev/nvme0n1: Timing O_DIRECT cached reads: 2548 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1273.69 MB/sec Timing O_DIRECT disk reads: 4188 MB in 3.00 seconds = 1395.36 MB/sec I do not understand how the...

 
 
2 hours later…
9:12 PM
2 hours ago, by That Brazilian Guy
/dev/xvda2
 Timing cached reads:   13950 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6997.93 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  66 MB in  3.09 seconds =  21.37 MB/sec
Results from a USD 5 Digital Ocean droplet for getting depressed comparison:
/dev/vda1:
 Timing cached reads:   13854 MB in  1.99 seconds = 6945.65 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 448 MB in  3.01 seconds = 148.93 MB/sec
So, yeah. The server that houses a dozen different services for my team is, at least I/0-wise, seven times worse than the cheapest DO offer.
Yay.
At least my misadventures amuse you folks.
 
@bwDraco or anyone else
Thoughts on this camera
 
This model is sold as the EOS Rebel T100 in North America. Let me do some research...
I'm wondering if you could step up to the 2000D...
This is the most basic model Canon makes.
Or better, the 800D.
 
9:29 PM
E.... I'd be inclined to go for the 4000D over the 2000D. The sensor size is the same, but they've crammed more pixels in to the 2000D, so you're going to run into noise earlier as you push the ISO.
The only difference between the two cameras is the sensor size and the screen size/resolution.
 
@MichaelFrank That... depends. Gimme a moment while I look it up.
Higher pixel density may not reduce overall image quality all that much.
It's true that the 4000D has a lower-resolution sensor, but Canon's 18MP sensor is actually very old.
 
@bwDraco no, this is at the price limit.
 
AIUI it dates as far back as the Canon EOS 7D of 2009...
 
@djsmiley2k 299?
 
GBp
yuis
 
9:36 PM
@MichaelFrank Canon's 24MP APS-C sensor has newer tech and the higher pixel density does not come at the cost of high-ISO performance.
You're basically getting decade-old sensor tech in the 4000D.
 
they're replacing a 15~yr old little digicam thing
 
Thats literally the only option if you are hardcapped at that price point though.
 
What's the intended usage?
 
The alternative is a Nikon D3500 at 350
Probably taking photos.
 
Taking ... photos
yeah
 
9:39 PM
But that's just a guess.
 
The D3500 has a much better sensor.
 
think 'my first digital slr'
They want something that just works
 
The D3500 and D5600 AIUI have the same sensor, which is generally considered to be among the best APS-C sensors out there.
(hint: Sony makes the sensors for a lot of Nikon's DSLRs, and Sony Exmor sensors are generally considered to be the best sensors out there)
Heck, my Pentax DSLRs use Sony sensors and the image quality has never left me wanting.
 
Nikon?
 
D3500.
Not every Nikon DSLR uses Sony sensors, but most of their entry-level and midrange stuff does.
Some of their high-end cameras used in-house sensors but it seems they've switched to Sony across the board, see nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/…
Canon's sensors are all in-house. For years, they've lagged behind Sony but the latest models are a big improvement.
Sony... duh, they're all in-house.
Note that this only applies to interchangeable-lens cameras. Compact camera sensors may be made by others.
 
9:50 PM
@djsmiley2k It would be fine for a 'My first digital slr' that is replacing a 15 year old camera.
 
What's the performance requirement?
Image quality?
Low light performance?
If image quality is of first concern, the D3500 is probably your best bet. Canon's entry-level sensors are no match.
 
@bwDraco 'replacing a 15 year old digicam'
It's literally a 'does it take pictures? Yes/No' situation.
 
What about future use cases? Expansion (e.g. more lenses)?
 
Don't get caught up in the technically details here.
 
if someone said don't ever buy canon's
 
9:52 PM
I have a 450D, I still use it to this day.
 
Canon's high-end stuff is great but their entry-level cameras aren't on the same level as their competition.
FWIW... I'm actually inclined to suggest Micro Four Thirds instead at this point. You lose a bit of high-ISO performance because the sensor is smaller, but it's not much worse than APS-C these days and it's a heck of a lot smaller.
 
You're going up in price point there...
 
But I cannot recommend the EOS 4000D.
I'm looking at Olympus's entry-level solution, the OM-D E-M10 Mark III...
I'm not too familiar with the options in today's camera market. I haven't been following the trends that closely lately...
 
@bwDraco which is almost twice what he said the price cap was.
 
@djsmiley2k, are you sure you actually need a DSLR? $400 is a very low budget for one.
The D3500 is really the best I can suggest inside such a tight price limit.
 
10:00 PM
tis nto for me
 
What matters most? Resolution, image quality in low light, zoom range, speed, expandability, or something else?
 
I got a cheap DSLR a few years ago, and it's awesome
@bwDraco he's not very specific other than the existing digicam is dying
and asked me for reccomendations at which point I just shrug and look at amazons top rated/top sellers
 
A better choice is something in the higher end of the point-and-shoot range, not a DSLR or mirrorless system camera.
At this price point, you start seeing better options like larger-than-average sensors and better lenses.
What is the existing camera?
Zoom range likely matters here and DSLRs only come with 3x zoom lenses at this price point. You're going to have spend hundreds to thousands more for good optics beyond that.
 
10:28 PM
@djsmiley2k: Sony HX99, Panasonic TZ95? Neither of these will give you great image quality at night, but I'm leaning towards the Sony here.
Larger sensors are hard to come by without a higher budget.
Be sure to tell me what you've chosen, @djsmiley2k. Your options are fairly limited as the modern smartphone camera has displaced most of the entry-level.
My "everyday" camera is a Panasonic FZ1000. Not exactly cheap at $600 when I got it, but the combination of a larger 1" sensor and 24x zoom range make for a very satisfying shooting experience.
(there's an FZ1000 II coming soon with an updated interface and control layout and other minor enhancements, but there's no reason to replace my existing solution)
Well, not 24x zoom. 16x.
Sorry, got a bit confused. The zoom range on the FZ1000 is 16x, 25-400mm (equiv. 135).
 
10:45 PM
(the router itself is currently configured to use 1.1.1.1 and 1.0.0.1, with Google DNS 8.8.4.4 as a last fallback)
 
10:56 PM
I don't configure DNS locally because it might break if I'm on someone else's network.
 
I use Private DNS on android.
 
My phone runs Android 9 (as LineageOS 16.0) so this is definitely new to me.
And it works.
 
@bwDraco Did you know that Firefox has it's on built in DNS resolver?
 
I'm kinda going through the motions of configuring it right now...
 
Kinda frustrating if you're trying to use something like OpenDNS for content filtering.
 
11:13 PM
My network doesn't do content filtering at the edge.
Got it, working now.
 

« first day (3148 days earlier)      last day (1862 days later) »