Coronavirus is just like the Flu. Why do they make a big deal about it ?

Stop comparing this virus to the flu. It is a.super flu, or motor like the 1916 polio epidemic.

 This is more like  a highly contagious viral pneumonia. I’ve had viral pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, which has a 40% fatality rate. That was 10 years ago. 

Spreading mis information like you are is more contagious than vivid 19. If one of your relatives or real friends gets it or DIES from it, are you still going to spread midi formation. Willfully ignorance can be very fatal for YOU and those around you.  

Deal – Join my team and get 75 BMF | Proxies-free

Earnings Disclaimer:  All the posts published herein are merely based on individual views, and they do not expressly or by implications represent those of Proxies-free or its owner. It is hereby made clear that Proxies-free does not endorse, support, adopt or vouch any views, programs and/or business opportunities posted herein. Proxies-free also does not give and/or offer any investment advice to any members and/or it’s readers. All members and readers are advised to independently consult their own consultants, lawyers and/or families before making any investment and/or business decisions. This forum is merely a place for general discussions. It is hereby agreed by all members and/or readers that Proxies-free is in no way responsible and/or liable for any damages and/or losses suffered by anyone of you.

XenSpec – KVM VPS Offers in Chicago and Los Angeles from $2.15/mo + Dedicated Server Deal

Jacob from XenSpec is back with another exclusive offer for the Low End Box community on their KVM VPS and Dedicated Servers. XenSpec was last featured on Low End Box in March 2020.

Their WHOIS is public (confirmed domain creation date in 2017) and you can find their ToS/Legal Docs on their website. They accept PayPal, Bitcoin, and Credit/Debit cards via Stripe as payment methods. Alipay and WeChatPay will also be accepted in the near future.

Here’s what they had to say: 

“XenSpec is a hosting company founded in 2017, with locations in both Chicago and Los Angeles. We provide Dedicated Servers, Colocation, VPS, and Custom Solutions. Our goal is to provide our services with the best possible support to all our customers! Our Chicago location is based out of CoreSite’s CH1 datacenter, and our Los Angeles location is based in CoreSite’s LA1 facility. These diverse locations allow us to provide minimal latency to customers in the Midwest United States, and the West Coast / Asia.

We’re primarily known for our excellent and speedy support services. All servers and VPSes in these offers include a high tier of support services, guaranteed to keep our customers in good hands.

Our VPS services are all KVM based, and are hosted on high performance E5-2670v2 servers. VPS storage is completely SSD based, and resides on a high performance/redundant Ceph cluster backend.”

Here are their offers: 

Chicago Custom VPS

  • 1 vCPU
  • 1GB RAM
  • 10GB SSD
  • 1 IPv4
  • IPv6 Available
  • Gigabit Uplink
  • Discount Code: U25WKB4MJH
  • Was: $2.40, Now: $2.15/month
  • (ORDER)

Los Angeles Custom VPS

  • 1 vCPU
  • 1GB RAM
  • 10GB SSD
  • 1 IPv4
  • IPv6 Available
  • Gigabit Uplink
  • Discount Code: B7EN4NRS34
  • Was: $2.95, Now: $2.65/month
  • (ORDER)

Single Xeon E3-1265Lv3

  • 24GB RAM
  • 1x 500GB SSD
  • 15TB – 1Gbps Uplink
  • 40Gbps DDoS protection
  • 5 IPv4 Addresses
  • Any size IPv6 block (/48, /56, /64)
  • No setup fees
  • $40.00/month
  • (ORDER)

Datacenter details and test files after the break!


OpenVZ Nodes:

  • Intel Xeon E3-1240v2 or greater
  • 32GB RAM or greater
  • 4x 1TB Samsung 860 Pro SSD’s
  • LSI MegaRAID Hardware RAID10
  • Dual 1Gbps Uplinks

Please let us know if you have any questions/comments and enjoy!

encryption – Transmit over CAN-FD a RSA-ecrypted and signed message, how to deal with message lenght?

You never encrypt the message itself using RSA. You use hybrid encryption.

First choose the AEAD mode that you want to use for the symmetric part.

AES-GCM is popular. AES-EAX is preferred by Google on hardware that has AES circuits.

ChaCha20-Poly1305 is recommended if your hardware doesn’t have a hardware circuit for AES. I would use XChacha20-Poly1305 (extended nonce version) because then I don’t need to worry about nonce reuse and about insecure software AES.

If you can’t use those, you can use AES-CTR with HMAC-SHA2, with the MAC covering the nonce (if you use CTR with nonce and counter and not only counter), in encrypt-then-MAC, MAC-then-decrypt mode. This is also secure.

AES-CBC with random IV and HMAC-SHA2 is also secure, with the MAC covering the IV and again in encrypt-then-MAC, MAC-then-decrypt mode. This is slower to encrypt, but you probably don’t care.

After you have your AEAD mode, you look how many random bytes you need to encrypt a message. You generate that many random bytes and use them to encrypt the cleartext. You need to send the ciphertext, the nonce and the MAC to the other side. You encrypt the random bytes you used using RSA-OAEP (RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 is bad). You sign the whole thing using RSA-PSS (RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 is bad).

You send the ciphertext of the message itself. If you chose CBC, your message gets padded up to 16 bytes. Otherwise, no padding.

You need to send the nonce or IV, so add that. Size depends on AEAD mode.

You need to send the MAC, so add that. Size depends on AEAD mode.

The RSA-2048 encryption of the random bytes is 256 bytes, regardless of message size.

The RSA-2048 signature over the whole thing is 256 bytes, regardless of message size.

Using X25519 and Ed25519 signatures would be shorter.

Combining all those primitives into a protocol yourself is likely to be insecure, you are much better off using Google Tink or libsodium.

Best way to deal with lots of nested closures in Swift

I have some external SDK library that makes IO calls (either networking or database) in the form of blocks, like so:

SomeClass.doWork(success: {}, failure: {})

Now I need to chain about 60 different calls because we are working on data replication where each operation is distinct enough that it’s not the same, but the principle is there -> all of these take a success and a failure blocks.

What is the best way to organise this spaghetti:

let failureBlock: () -> Void = { // something

SomeClass.doWork(success: { (unowned self) in
   self.runChecks(success: {
       SomeOtherClass.somethingElse(success: { 
           SomeClass.doWork(success: { (unowned self) in
              self.doMore() ///... and on and on she goes
           }, failure: failureBlock)
       }, failure: failureBlock)
    }, failure: failureBlock)
}, failure: failureBlock)

browser based games – How to deal with players having too much money (or any large numbers)?

I read somewhere that you shouldn’t compare floats

Beware programming by hearsay. This is a good way to make mistakes for reasons you don’t understand. Instead, ask for clarification.

The full advice here is “be careful when comparing floats for exact equality.” Code like if (playerCoinBalance == 0) is safe enough with integers, but with floats the player’s coin balance could conceivably be 1.401298E-45, which is a perfectly valid float that is exceptionally close to zero, but is not actually zero, so the == comparison will return false, even though the player can’t buy anything with one quattuordecillionth of a coin, and if we printed the balance in their inventory it would likely round to “0”.

But when you’re comparing ranges, you’re reasonably safe. if (playerCoinBalance >= cost) will pass for any balance exactly at, slightly over, or way over the cost, just as desired. So, the trick for float comparisons is to think about ranges of tolerance, rather than exact equality.

That said, floats are not a good choice for solving the problem of players getting too much money. For two reasons:

  • They still have a maximum value, so you’ve just moved the problem, you haven’t solved it. If you go past 3.40282347E+38 (a little shy of a duodecillion), you spill out to infinity, after which the player has unlimited money to spend.

  • They lose precision as the number gets larger. Once you exceed about 33 million, you no longer have integer precision with a 32-bit float. So while you don’t get an overflow error right away, you can get weird rounding artifacts: like I give you 5 coins, but your balance goes up by only 4 coins, because it got rounded to the closest representable value. Or you spend a coin without changing your balance, because currentBalance - 1 isn’t a representable number.

As you point out, many games successfully solve this problem by enforcing a maximum cap on your balance – often something like 99, 999, 9999, or 99 999. (These numbers tend to make more intuitive sense to your players than 2 147 483 646, and also neatly cap how many digits / how much text field width you need to display the balance in base 10 in your UI, while making maximum use of that available real estate).

A benefit you get from this is that it discourages stockpiling money, and encourages spending. The player risks losing value if they continue earning while close to their cap, so it’s in their best interest to spend the money before it gets there. Just make sure the cap is clearly advertised to the player, so it doesn’t bite them by surprise.

You can even make a game mechanic out of the cap, as Legend of Zelda games do by letting you earn bigger and bigger wallets with higher caps as part of your character progression. This helps ensure the player is aware of the cap and not surprised by it, gives them opportunities to set and achieve goals with a major impact on their purchasing power, and lets you gate certain purchases behind these progression milestones by setting their cost just over one of the lower caps.

We can’t tell you what the right solution is for your game, but I don’t see any particular reason not to enforce a cap like this, in tandem with the game mechanics changes you have in mind for point 1, to reduce the likelihood that players stockpile that much in the first place.

typography – How to deal with style leading to ambiguous situation?

There is a small set of style rules which can make text ambiguous. This is usually not a problem in books, where the ambiguity is not a big deal, but could be a problem in technical documentation.

One of such rules is that full points and commas should be put before the closing quotation mark:

In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material.

Waddingham, A. (2014), New Hart’s rules: The Oxford style guide, p. 163.

Occasionally, when writing technical documentation, I plainly violated this rule to avoid the ambiguity. For instance, instead of:

To view the blocks “M+,” “TX,” and “B-,” authenticate through a service account “cron1,” using the password “Ge:sa#zsY3OMEb,cBXqw-5h/0Z.”

I would write:

To view the blocks “M+”, “TX”, and “B-”, authenticate through a service account “cron1”, using the password “Ge:sa#zsY3OMEb,cBXqw-5h/0Z”.

Otherwise, most users would simply copy the password with the dot, and would have no idea why it doesn’t work. This being said, they won’t have any ambiguity regarding the account name, but they might hesitate when it comes to the names of blocks.

Violating the rule from time to time, and following it the other times, doesn’t seem to me like an ideal solution:

  • It is inconsistent.
  • It looks wrong. When I read it, I have to remember that I violated the rule on purpose.
  • It forces me to think, instead of blindly following a basic style rule.

Is there a better solution?

How should a dealer deal with superconsciousness? – General Forex Questions & Help

Excessive trust in forex is a common problem for many traders. At some point, I am too confident in my trade and have lost it as a result. Confidence is good in every activity of our lives, but if it becomes too confident, our minds cannot make the right decision in any situation. When traders make a decision under a confident decision, the probability of a loss in Forex trading always increases.

Experienced traders are unable to make the right decision, even in high-spirited situations. It is not easy to judge whether we are confident or high-spirited, so we should follow our plan to avoid a high-spirited situation in forex trading. If we stick to our goal, we can always save ourselves from superconsciousness.

Let's try MYfxbook AutoTrade: choose a trading system and trust your money in a carefully selected strategy