Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Jewells45 2025 Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
This is mostly driven by Apple, because... Because nothing, really. It's a bad solution to a non-problem.
Apple has been pushing for this for some time. Previously certificates were valid for up to five years, and then Apple got involved.
And the certificate vendors have just committed suicide, because nobody is going to pay them for a certificate that has to be manually refreshed every few weeks, and if you are deploying an automated solution you might as well go all the way and implement a free automated solution using Let's Encrypt.
And it's true that SSL is intended to be resilient to this sort of attack, but if you care about security you need to care about who is providing your DNS, and if you do then this attack doesn't work anyway.
Intel's graphics drives are somewhat inefficient. This doesn't show up on recent CPUs, because they are fast enough to keep up anyway. But if you pair an Intel graphics card with a CPU from five years ago, the performance bottleneck is now the CPU.
This is a problem because Intel's graphics cards are cheaper than anything current from AMD or Nvidia, making them look like a good option for people with tight budgets... Who would still be using older CPUs.