You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
NGINX+SPDY with Unicorn. True Zero-Downtime unless migrations. Best practices.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
So I was reading Hacker News and decided to read the comments in the thread about H.265 being approved. Pretty close to the top was this comment about VP9, Google's future video format. I have some words of my own about it and other future formats at the bottom of this post, but what jumped out from the comment to me was this part:
Many have already implemented VP8 (which is also slightly better than h.264 at this point)
The comparison linked to back up that statement is faulty for several reasons, such as not providing the source material used (hell, he doesn't even name the source material), exact encoding settings used (no, some random profiles are not enough), not providing the resulting encodes, only providing a
The [RFC for a new simple to use password hashing API][rfc] has just been accepted for PHP 5.5. As the RFC itself is rather technical and most of the sample codes are something you should not use, I want to give a very quick overview of the new API:
Why do we need a new API?
Everybody knows that you should be hashing their passwords using bcrypt, but still a surprising number of developers uses insecure md5 or sha1 hashes (just look at the recent password leaks). One of the reasons for this is that the crypt() API is ridiculously hard to use and very prone to programming mistakes.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Created
June 22, 2013 04:10— forked from ck-on/ocp.php
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters