[Hostpoco.com]*Cheap US VPS Hosting – 24/7 Support – 2 TB Monthly Traffic – free RDN

Hostpoco.com provides Cheap Reliable US-based VPS Hosting Starting from $14.99, All of our VPS plans come fully managed as well, no more worrying about how to set up and manage your VPS. Just Sign up and try our service. we will manage everything.

Website: https://hostpoco.com/
Email support: Sales@hostpoco.com

All VPS Plans Include

» Complete Root Access
» 24×7 Rescue System
» Premium Bandwidth
» 24/7 Fully Managed
» 99.9% Server Uptime Guarantee
» Free VPS Migration
» 30 Day Money Back Guarantee!
» SSH Access
» Free Setup
» IPv4 included

Our VPS Package

*VPS Startup
~ 1024 MB Memory
~ 30 GB Raid 10 Storage
~ 2 TB Monthly Traffic
~ 1 IP4 included
Starting $14.99/mo.

*VPS Pro
~ 2048 MB Memory
~ 60 GB Raid 10 Storage
~ 3 TB Monthly Traffic
~ 1 IPv4 included
Starting $24.99/mo.

*VPS Premium
~ 4096 MB Memory
~ 120 GB Raid 10 Storage
~ 4 TB Monthly Traffic
~ 1 IPv4 included
~ Starting $44.99/mo.

*VPS Elite
~ 8192 MB Memory
~ 180 GB Raid 10 Storage
~ 8 TB Monthly Traffic
~ 1 IPv4 included
Starting $84.99/mo.

Order now: https://hostpoco.com/cheap-us-vps-hosting.php

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HostPoco
Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HostPoco/

Why was 24-bit color support introduced twice in GPUs?

I was doing research, trying to answer the question "Which was the first GPU to support 24-bit color". I know all color since 1992 is 24-bit, even in games like Doom. I mean 16 million simultaneous colors on the screen, not just 256 unique colors from a 24-bit palette.

I started digging, and naturally I came across the ATI Mach 32. Later I find out that RIVA TNT also "added" support for truecolor. So I’m left wondering, is 24-bit color support some ancient technology that was forgotten after 1992 and rediscovered in the year 1998? Or are they talking about something different?

I have two guesses, but I’d love to know the real explanation:

  1. Truecolor support in RIVA TNT meant it’s hardware accelerated, as in the sprites are stored in the VRAM, as opposed to the Mach 32, where the VRAM is just a frame buffer so acceleration would be considered software.
  2. Nvidia meant 32-bit color texture, not even talking about frame buffer pixel depth.

Anyone know what both Nvidia and ATI really meant?

PCI Compliance for developers accessing a production database for support

As a developer, when an Incident comes in and reaches Tier 3 support (The development team), how can the developers get access to query the Production Database, while remaining PCI Compliant? I’m admittedly a newbie when it comes to PCI Compliance. Is this just a case of Read-Only accounts? Is this a case of data masking? Is this a case of having a Production copy within Production so devs can’t hit a "Live" db? What’s the easiest, and compliant way for developers to be able to perform application incident support in production?

Support Vectors SVM

I have read somewhere that the value of slack variables of support vectors is not 0. Does that mean the points lying in the wrong region e.g a positive point lying in the negative region will also be a support vector? I have attached one picture as well which shows that points lying in the wrong region are also support vectors. I am looking for an explanation of this phenomenon It has 12 support vectors! the wrong point in the green region is also considered as one support vector!

Which Combat maneuvers best support a highly mobile monk?

I’m planning a Rogue/Monk character, and I’m planning on being a highly mobile Monk who moves around the battlefield a lot, trying to get as many attacks as possible.

One of the ideas I had was to take the the martial adept feat, to add some variety to my actions.

I know some of the Battle Maneuvers aren’t synergistic with monk abilities, like tripping, because Monks can eventually get Stunning Strike.

Which of the Battle Maneuvers are most synergistic with:

  • Sneak Attack once a round
  • Multiple Attacks on the same enemy
  • Single Attacks on multiple enemies
  • Moving around the battlefield

Why does PHP’s strtotime() not understand a Unix timestamp? Or: Why don’t programming languages support “versions” of themselves? [closed]

Yes, I know that strtotime returns a Unix timestamp from a "time string". However, there are numerous situations where I’ve fed a semi-unknown "time string" into it and been baffled when I got a bool(false) returned instead of it just returning the same integer back:

$  current_timestamp = time(); var_dump(strtotime($  current_timestamp)); 

Output:

bool(false) 

I have long since made a wrapper function to strtotime, as I have done with every single PHP function I use, which handles this for it, so it’s not a practical problem for me anymore. However, it’s very interesting to me how this kind of situation can happen.

Why do such smart people (no, this is not sarcasm), who are able to create a highly advanced and complex programming language, which I could never do myself even if I got 50 years of "paused time" from now to do it, just seem to "overlook" many such basic "details"?

Is this another case of "we knew about it early on, and agree that it was not right, but people had begun expecting this bad behaviour from the function, and then we couldn’t change it, and as time went by, it became less and less possible"?

I’m very torn about things like this. This particular thing I find idiotic, but there is a good point against changing things around. Just look at the nightmare that is Python. I wouldn’t want to have to constantly try to re-read the manual for every single PHP function I use, wondering if PHP 8.1 or something has changed the parameter order around or something evil like that. If I have to choose between that or fix things myself, I choose the latter.

I just wish that language authors, and in particular PHP since it’s what I use, would just introduce some kind of "legacy mode" where the old/original versions of functions are kept around in the "engine", but only activated unless the user does <?php8 for their scripts, or something like that. Or maybe set a configuration option, to make the source code files less ugly. That seems like a perfect compromise to me. Why is that not actually done?

Remote APIs, such as Stripe (payment-related), frequently have "versions" where old ones are supported for ages/ever, so why can’t local programming language engines also do that?

What’s the deal with X25519 Support in Chrome/Firefox?

RFC8446/TLSv1.3 Section 9.1 says that "implementations SHOULD support X25519".

An online list of software supporting Curve25519 list both Firefox and /Chrome as supporting it for TLS.

I did an experiment and created a self-signed TLS cert with Ed25519. Both Chromium 84 and Firefox 79 complain about not being able to negotiate the cipher list/version. I’ve also noticed that they initiate TLSv1.2 handshakes when connecting to localhost, but use TLSv1.3 handshakes when connecting to google for example. wget on the other hand, has no problem connecting (I used --no-check-certificate, but afaik that shouldn’t matter here)

I then looked at the TLSv1.3 handshakes. neither browser offers Ed25519 as a signature in their ClientHello (even when connecting to google via TLSv1.3). Again, wget does offer it as part of the ClientHello.

Chromium 84.0 TLSv1.3 Supported Signatures

So I figured this might be a platform issue with my distro (Fedora), but this Blog Post also claims that the major browsers don’t supports X25519. While ChromeStatus says it’s been supported since Chrome 50 (I’m assuming chrome and upstream chromium do not differ in this).

I’m totally confused. What’s the current state of X25519 support on major browsers? is it a google chrome vs. upstream chromium issue?