If you enter a bookshop and you ask for a book that does not exist then it's definitely your mistake.
If you ask for a book they don't have it's a different matter.
In any case, when you ask for a book in a library you are using their "search" endpoint. The equivalent to opening a books/1 url would be asking for a specific instance of a book by serial number or so. Then it's clear that you made a mistake uf you do that for an unexistent serial number...
I don't know what kind of breakage was the parent talking about.
My experience is that as the car gets older it is common for the vents to lose the capability to stay pointed where I place them. As in: you point them where you want and they flip back all the way to one side as soon as you let go.
(Hot climate here, with several months of "a/c set to max during the whole trip" per year)
You may have reasons to require separate profiles. However, keep in mind that firefox multi-account containers [1] address many of the use cases for separate profiles in chrome with an IMHO better UX.
a) If you didn't use it (the less bad case you are considering) then why pay for the stat syscalls at every request?
b) If you did use it, apache was reparsing/reprocessing the (at least one) .htaccess file on every request. You can see how the real impact here was significantly worse than a cached stat syscall.
Most people were using it, hence the bad rep. Also, this was at a time where it was more comon to have webservers reading from NFS or other networked filesystem. Stat calls then involve the network and you can see how even the "mild" case could wreak havoc in some setups
I don't think this is worth it unless you are setting up your own CDN or similar. In the article, they exchange 1 to 4 stat calls for:
- A more complicated nginx configuration. This is no light matter. You can see in the comments that even the author got bugs in their first try. For instance, introducing an HSTS header now means you have to remember to do it in all those locations.
- Running a few regexes per request. This is probably still significantly cheaper than the stat calls, but I can't tell by how much (and the author hasn't checked either).
- Returning the default 404 page instead of the CMS's for any URL in the defined "static prefixes". This is actually the biggest change, both in user-visible behavior and in performance (particularly if a crazy crawler starts checking non-existing URLs ni bulk or similar). The article doesn't even mention this.
The performance gains for regular accesses are purely speculative because the author didn't make any effort to try and quantify them. If somebody has quantified the gains I'd love to hear about it though.
Apache's .htaccess is much worse performance-wise because it checked (and processed if it existed) all .htaccess files in all folders in the path. That is, you opened example.com/some/thing/interesting and apache would check (and possibly process) /docroot/.htaccess, /docroot/some/.htaccess, /docroot/some/thing/.htaccess and /docroot/some/thing/interesting/.htaccess.
Separating api and "front" in different domains does run into CORS issues though. I find it much nicer to reserve myapp.com/api for the API and route that accordingly. Also, you avoid having to juggle an "API_URL" env definiton in your different envs (you can just call /api/whatever, no matter which env you are in).
Both react-query (that is tanstack query now) [2] and rtk-query [3] include extensive configurability regarding their caching behaviors. This includes the ability to turn off caching entirely. [4,5]
Your story sounds like a usage error, not a library issue.
Also, they would school them on actual-world problems in the process:
- You can't wait until you receive the entire body to be able to compute a signature to then validate the sender as your first line of defense. It is just too expensive and opens you to DDOS attacks. People use IP reputation as a first line of defense because it is cheap, not because it is good.
- You cannot enforce people's behavior through RFCs. I can assure you that random guy next desk will not care about your "this is a top-posting-thread" header and bottom post there. Even if she has to manually copy/paste things around.
- Likewise, auto-generated plain-text versions of HTML (or other rich-text formats) are no better than what screen readers can achieve. Most poeple won't bother writing that alternate version, meaning the obligatory alt text is now less useful than when it was optional and only people who cared inculded it.
- Your largest client may not update their e-mail infrastructure to comply with the latest standards. If that happens, you don't tell them to update or otherwise you won't be answering them because their e-mails go to spam. You do whatever is necessary to ensure that their e-mails don't go to spam. Business always comes first.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
(x) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
The new pricing model where I got banned from using Opus entirely and half a day of work (with weaker models) consumed the 10$ plan was.
I'm now using a Claude Max subscription and I can get close to the daily limits but I'm fairly happy with the overall plan consumption.