With Gigabit LAN, I'm using Sunshine on my PC and the Android Moonlight client on the TV.

For Input, I've a Logitech K400 via USB dongle on the TV and Xbox controllers via Bluetooth.

Is there a slight lag? Yes. Are the majority of games I want enjoy on the couch and play on the big TV playable? Absolutely. I wouldn't play CoD but many many games just work well even with a Little lag.

PS: can also recommend playnite, giving a unified tv/Controller experience with access to multiple game stores , local Games and emulator support.

Adding a USB 3 Gigabit adapter to my Onn 4k Pro box was a massive improvement. I wanted to get the Onn model with built-in Ethernet but later discovered it was 10/100 and more consistent than the built-in Wifi, but much slower top speeds.

Plugged in a 15 dollar gigabit adapter and now I can stream anything instantly from my LAN with super low latency, even with huge uncompressed media.

Highly recommended upgrade, for sticks without extra USB-3.0 port, best option is a cheap USB-C dock for tablet/laptop with Gigabit ethernet. Amazon sells various versions for <$20 these days.

It's not bad but the challenge/balance really is off: I was maxed out everything around wave 10 and it's just never a challenge. Maybe it gets a challenge by wave 30 or so due to sheer number of enemies, but what's the point then?

That, saving and some nice splatter sounds would be add to the entertainment ;)

yea i experienced the same. did make more difficult by more challenign zombie types and adding damage to the car.

added better sound fx as well.

working out the wave 10 issue now.

Docker in docker, with opencode.

Opencode plus some scripts on host and in its container works well to run yolo and only see what it needs (via mounting). Has git tools but can't push etc. is thought how to run tests with the special container-in-container setup.

Including pre-configured MCPs, skills, etc.

The best part is that it just works for everyone on the team, big plus.

It's the creator of Laravel, Taylor Otwell

People are calling him savior of PHP. :D

Shame his financial contribution doesn't really match up. $34k is pretty darn low considering how much money Laravel makes. Even worse when you see much smaller operatons like Private Packagist have donated more than Laravel and Symfony combined.

Is it true, though? Serious question, I don’t participate much in PHP topics.

I'm a heavy PHP & Laravel developer and I speak for myself and a few close friends around my in my network who are like me. We all consider Laravel the reason we are still within the PHP scene and didn't move away. So in a sense I think it is true.

That said, the recent changes around Laravel (being bought out and becoming more and more commercial) is not something I (we) consider a good thing. Not necessarily a bad thing, but we all know that a OSS framework becoming commercial doesn't usually end well.

It's hyperbole, but like so often, there's a grain of it truth somewhere.

Also, like most things, Laravel is built on the shoulders of others. It sometimes makes hard things easy to access (ppl like this) and hides complexity away, clouding how things actually work (ppl don't like this).

I primarily use Laravel but like to think I code in a generalist if way as to not get stuck in its system.

Laravel (when it started) was mostly built upon Symphony components, which in turn was inspired by Java frameworks.

It's about as divisive as saviours in any other population.

> "savior"

Ehh, I don't think I'd ever use that word but he had a huge impact on reinvigorating the PHP ecosystem as a whole with Laravel. I remember playing with early versions of Laravel on my own and having my eyes opened to a better way to structure/write code.

Years ago I wanted to use native FTS (because of tall the things mentioned, having to sync to external simply adds complexity) and it failed at another point.

Not completely surprising, but on a table with _potentially_ couple of thousand of inserts / seconds, it slowed down the overall updates to the point that transactions timed out.

We already added an index for one of the columns we wanted to index and were running the statement for the second one. The moment this the second index finished, we started to see timeouts from our system when writing to that table, transaction failing etc.

We had to drop the indices again. So, sadly, we did never get to the point to test the actual FTS performance :/ I would have like to test this, because didn't necessarily had to search hundreds of millions of documents, due to customer tenants this would always be constrained to a few million _at most_.

ps: I already wrote about this -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27977526 . Never got a chance to try it nowadays (newer versions of everything, never hardware, etc.)

Sounds like the issue was just co-location of search index + other transactional data in the same table. If you had a table acting as your search index only then would insert lag on that table matter? I could maybe see connections piling up, but with proper batching I bet it'd be fine.

I learned the hard way that Gin updates are too slow, and in my case it was not even 100 updates per seconds on average, but could peak to 1000.

How does Pg_bm25 compare here with maintaining the index & performance?

If I am understanding your experience correctly the colloquial wisdom here is to use GIN on static data and GIST on dynamic data.

> In choosing which index type to use, GiST or GIN, consider these performance differences:

> GIN index lookups are about three times faster than GiST

> GIN indexes take about three times longer to build than GiST

> GIN indexes are moderately slower to update than GiST indexes, but about 10 times slower if fast-update support was disabled (see Section 54.3.1 for details)

> GIN indexes are two-to-three times larger than GiST indexes

> As a rule of thumb, GIN indexes are best for static data because lookups are faster. For dynamic data, GiST indexes are faster to update. Specifically, GiST indexes are very good for dynamic data and fast if the number of unique words (lexemes) is under 100,000, while GIN indexes will handle 100,000+ lexemes better but are slower to update.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/textsearch-indexes.html

Every time I read blogs like this I'm tempting to get back to the product, still in use, where we scraped the search integration due to the issues we had with pgsql (performance). Although ElasticSearch (nowadays: OpenSearch) is available, we never deemed it important enough for this part of the product.

In case you care, my comment from a few years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27977526

> for ~$188/month.

Note that this is still the on-demand price.

Although it's still not Apple to Apple, no one (sane) would useRDS 24x7 without RI. That probably brings you down another 50 bucks or so.

Last year I also learned that ransomware attackers are not computer gods, necessarily.

My QNAP NAS was open to the internet (a forgotten but-not-in-use port forward on my router) and the famous QLocker ransomware got hold of it.

I got out, I got really lucky. I've millions of files (useless to anyone in the world but me) on my NAS and the ransomware encryption took literally days. I probably discovered it on the 3rd day of its activity.

Someone brighter than me already figured things out and posted this on the qnap forums, that there's a 7zip process running which encrypts the files and they process all files sequentially (aka: takes a long time in my case). This 7zip process gets executed for every file and gets passed the password for it on the command line, though in the process view it was masked for me. But I could just replace the invoked 7zip binary with a shell script and redirect all the arguments -> presto, I had the password.

I then wrote some more shell scripts to decrypt all the files infected so far, wrote it more efficient than the attacker, and within 24 hours everything was back to normal.

Before anyone cries "BACKUPS": yes, of course I've off-site backup and they also were not (yet) affected. But actually I only backed up the real important data for me and my family, due to the costs at that time, I didn't backup _everything_. But I since switched cloud backup storage to Backblaze which I figured was the cheapest vs. acceptable ergonomics for recovery, so I could increase the amount of data I back up.

Lesson learned, I guess. I know not everyone can help themselves like I could, I feel really lucky I got away with just some blood sweating.

Interesting. So you're saying that the ransonware uses symmetric encryption, i.e. the same key is used to encrypt and decrypt.

I always assumed it used asymmetric encryption, and that the decryption key would never hit the victim's premises.

Definitely not computer gods.

I think asymmetric encryption is not usable for large amount of data, the only thing it is good for is to encrypt a passphrase or a binary signature (like a hash). If you can catch the process of encryption while it is running, it is likely that the passphrase is in memory (or used as a command line argument).

That's why you create a lengthy random key (that you know it cant be brute forced) and encrypt everything using it and symmetric encryption.

Than you store that random key encrypted with asymmetric algorithm.

Same goes for things like disk encryption. You never use the users key for encrypting the data. You always encrypt using random large key that is not brute-forcable and encrypt that one with user password, so the process of changing the user password is just decrypting the random key and encrypting it back with new password. Or you would have to re-encrypt the whole disk on password change

Shh, don't give them any ideas!

If you have read anything at all about encryption written since 1997 (probably before, that is when I first started reading) you already knew that.

If.

Most ransomware authors, I'd wager, have not been reading since before 1997.

Advanced ransomware use a hybrid scheme that generates a new symmetric key for each file and then encrypts that with an asymmetric key.

gpg supports using public / private keypairs to encrypt any amount of data you like. I use it for uni-directional backups from machines where trust is an issue.

Or is the reality of this that it's just encrypting a symmetric key with the asymmetric cipher, and then encrypting data using that key?

Everything is encrypted with a symmetric key. It is just that sometimes there is an asymmetrically encrypted symmetric key packet included in the message so that GPG (or whatever) does not have to ask you for the symmetric key. This is all fairly generic, if you actually have the symmetric key you can use it directly even if a key packet exists. This means that you can give some entity a key to decrypt a particular message/file without revealing your asymmetric secret key associated with your identity.

Try Octane, it's the app server we were longing for.