I love the BEAM and programmed on it for many years, but it really does not provide anything like durable objects.
1) It's very difficult to ensure globally serialized ownership with strong consistency in a distributed Erlang cluster when nodes are allowed to fail. Stuff like Horde will let you do some rough "run an instance of this process somewhere in the cluster", but it's eventually consistent (you may have multiple instances at times) and doesn't deal with netsplits well.
2) Mnesia is fine to replicate state within a network switch or very reliable LAN, but not over WLAN/Internet. It can enter split brain conditions and require external reconciliation. RabbitMQ suffered from Mnesia problems for many years and ended up replacing it with their own DB implementation using the Raft protocol.
See these are things I did not know. This is why I said I was 'not qualified', in the post, haha. I do use Horde for the matchmaking. I have 2 hosts in the cluster.
Well her detention didn't happen immediately, it likely happened because she didn't respond to an email while they were investigating asking for more information, which she even admits.
I suppose there could be two checksums, or two hashes: the public spec that can be used by API key scanners on the client side to detect leaks, and an internal hash with a secret nonce that is used to validate that the API key is potentially valid before needing to look it up in the database.
That lets clients detect leaks, but malicious clients cant generate lots of valid-looking keys to spam your API endpoint and generate database load for just looking up API keys.
He's obviously not saying that you can "trust blindly" any PQ algorithm out there, just that there are some that have appeared robust over many years of analysis.
He is assessing that the risk of seeing a quantum computer break dlog cryptography is stronger than the risk of having post quantum assumptions broken, in particular for lattices.
One can always debate but we have seen more post quantum assumptions break during the last 15 years than we have seen concrete progress in practical quantum factorisation (I'm not talking about the theory).
I see what you're saying now, I was imagining the type of transparency log that's usually run by a single institution and audited by a few others.
Even if every voter gets a hash and can check that their vote is in the log, you still have a bunch of places where a central actor can misbehave: Deciding who gets to write to the log in the first place, rate-limiting or dropping submissions, or running split-view logs in the event that there's not a ton of replication - hoping that wouldn't be the case in an election.
With a (properly designed) blockchain, you at least push those assumptions into a consensus layer with many writers/validators and game-theory penalties for rewriting its history. It's still not magic; but for something like elections, I'd rather minimize the points where a single operator can tilt the playing field, which is why I was thinking "blockchain" instead of "centralized transparency log"
No, just publish the hash of the full log. No blockchain required at all. Anybody can check they are seeing the same log as others by checking the log hash.
Sometimes it's impossible even with an account. I can't search in English on my phone in Japan. If I go into options and change the language, the moment I click OK, it switches everything right back to Japanese. I know multiple colleagues who've had the same issue for years.
Really? All the Elixir fans were saying that?
reply