@crell@phpc.socialThe Internet needs more of this, and fewer Nazis. That would truly be a better world.
I appreciate that he hired a real person, rather than AI slop.
https://ericwbailey.website/published/you-must-listen-to-rfc-2119/
@mgorny@pol.socialDodajemy jeszcze jeden system budowania, brachu! Z pewnością nie pożałujesz dodania jeszcze jednego systemu budowania!
Oczywiście, że próbują wepchnąć bajzel… znaczy, #Bazel.
https://github.com/libarchive/libar…
@frankel@mastodon.topStandard #Commits 0.1.0 ─ #RFC
https://github.com/standard-commits/standard-commits…
@realmurphy@social.linux.pizza@… @…
nooo, this is the well known SDTDaaS (Smoke Detector Testing Device as a Service), should probably be covered by some April 1st RFC/ISO
@fanf@mendeddrum.orga bit of a blast from the past!
https://mastodon.online/@rfceditor/114700678397803497
@grifferz@social.bitfolk.comgmail says it doesn't like emojis in the "display name" (the real name part of an email address) even though they are RFC-compliant.
Just another example of how a gmail account is not an email account.
Although these are guidelines for bulk senders, I do have newsletters etc that I have subscribed to that have emojis in their name.
@grifferz@social.bitfolk.comgmail says it doesn't like emojis in the "display name" (the real name part of an email address) even though they are RFC-compliant.
Just another example of how a gmail account is not an email account.
Although these are guidelines for bulk senders, I do have newsletters etc that I have subscribed to that have emojis in their name.
@rperezrosario@mastodon.socialAngular Blog editor Minko Gechev shares what's new on Angular 20. Highlights include newly stabilized APIs, improved debugging tools, polishing the developer experience, and features to enhance generative AI development.
Also, the Angular team has launched an RFC to pick an official mascot for Angular. Isn't that great?
"Announcing Angular v20"
@grumpybozo@toad.socialUseful.
I’ve always disliked the fact that SOHO NAT routers all seem to be configured with one of a handful of 192.168.*/24 subnets. Beyond the risk of collision, I’ve had the experience of being told vehemently by benighted customer “IT guys” that I’ve done something horribly wrong by setting their inside up on 10.175.202.0/23 or some similarly uncommon RFC1918 block, because they “knew” that it was supposed to be in the Class C range of RFC 1918.
@arXiv_csSE_bot@mastoxiv.pageAn LLM Agent for Functional Bug Detection in Network Protocols
Mingwei Zheng, Chengpeng Wang, Xuwei Liu, Jinyao Guo, Shiwei Feng, Xiangyu Zhang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00714
