anyfoo

39 ms·

661.
by anyfoo 3y ago
> The future of chips is security on the chip. I was like no, no its not! Putting aside whether the statement is considered true or not, buying McAfee under the guise of the kind of security meant when talking about silicon is... weird,
662.
by anyfoo 3y ago
That baffles me as well. Nothing about Salad Fingers gives that vibe to me. Does the author also think that Akira looks and feels like a children’s show? There were other shows that went for that vibe only to subvert it (happy tree friends
663.
by anyfoo 3y ago
In old German movies and documentaries, “Elektronengehirn” (literally “electron brain”) is a term I’ve encountered a lot. It is unknown nowadays.
664.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Isn’t that true for transistors as well?
665.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Obviously (which makes me guess you’re not serious) it’s not about the view but the natural light.
666.
by anyfoo 3y ago
EDIT: It looks like something that mostly addresses my problem, “strict tables”, was added in 2021. Thank you everyone. It seems this rewrite would not have addressed my biggest gripe with SQLite: Surprisingly, it is not actually type safe.
667.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Good question. By the way, Germans and French people at least do use 12hr time, but only colloquially. When talking to someone, you’d say things like (literally translated, obviously) “let’s meet at five”, or “I saw them at around 5 in the
668.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Took me a while, but here you go: https://ardent-tool.com/CPU/docs/Intel/386/datasheets/231052...
669.
by anyfoo 3y ago
I’m not sure why I have to defend my curiosity, but the engineering decision to add CR4, instead of using the existing CR1 which was literally all bits “reserved for future use”, is just interesting to me. Especially because MSRs were also
670.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Because the bases are all wrong. Common number bases are 10, 16, maybe 8 if you live in the 70s, and 2. Except for the utterly unwieldy binary, none of those bases adapt well to the bases used in representing time, which are mostly the (par
671.
by anyfoo 3y ago
They could have started using CR1 instead of introducing CR4, that to me is the mystery. A likely answer is that some software may have been relying on CR1 faulting, though that’s kind of weird.
672.
by anyfoo 3y ago
If you can, see if there is any trace of the CR1 control register in the 386. It’s fully marked as reserved, faults on access, and has never been used even with any successors. (Later, CR4 was added, and then for new things it was mostly de
673.
by anyfoo 3y ago
I'm not entirely through with the video yet, but the core of the idea doesn't need that much from the MOV instruction. No control flow happens in the traditional sense from the CPUs point of view, it's all just linear execu
674.
by anyfoo 3y ago
But now you're just employing another machine, which is not just made out of MOVs. The video describes in detail what actually happens. I encourage watching it, it's pretty genius, but the very short version is that you turn execu
675.
by anyfoo 3y ago
OpenBSD itself is a very capable and secure, but also very clean operating system. Everything feels as if it's out of "a single mold", much unlike e.g. Linux which is, in a sense, clearly cobbled together from many different
676.
by anyfoo 3y ago
I wasn't quite as bad for me, but every once in a while, after a power outage (or the very, very rare kernel panic), I need to get out the laptop and the serial cable to manually fsck my headless server box, because the automatic fsck
677.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Look, I'm a big fan of OpenBSD (and use it myself), but journaling filesystems are many decades old at this point, and they have very clear advantages. One is not to have to sit through an excruciatingly long fsck after a power outage,
678.
by anyfoo 3y ago
They have value types. The expressions don’t have types (or rather very general types), but the values do, and it’s still possible to have a dynamic language with very rigorous value types that have a well-defined set of inhabitants. Any dy
679.
by anyfoo 3y ago
It means that the type system can prove certain properties for you. For example, in languages with dependent type systems like Agda, you can construct a sorted list type that the compiler will prove it sorted at all times, otherwise it won’
680.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Yeah, anything can be implemented incorrectly. My point was specifically that ignoring memory safe languages in favor of post-exploit mitigation is foolish, not that the latter is useless. But in practice, type systems can be proven to be s
681.
by anyfoo 3y ago
I did not claim that everything about the code was proven correct, but a subset of properties expressable by the type system. I agree that using the word “strong” was wrong. I basically meant it in the sense of “good”/“elaborate”, mist
682.
by anyfoo 3y ago
I never claimed all memory safe languages are type safe. But memory safety is a subset of type safety. Whether dynamic or static (though I’m much in the latter camp), memory safety is achieved through information associated with the types.
683.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Luckily type safe languages, which includes memory safe languages, help you in understanding the program as a whole better, and strictly prevent you from doing things against that understanding, because the types literally encode automatica
684.
by anyfoo 3y ago
This again. Strong type systems can give provably correct code. For trusted code (e.g. not third party code), sandboxing is a post-exploit mitigation. And such a post-exploit mitigation cannot necessarily guard against any class of bugs t
685.
by anyfoo 3y ago
So I take it you're still mostly writing your code in machine language (who even needs a macro assembler)? Or BCPL?
686.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Because this site is tracking climate data, not psychology?
687.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Because there are now relatively simple, portable languages that vastly improve on C's safety and virtually non-existing type system, in order to prevent a lot of easy but critical security issues. I say that as someone who's been
688.
by anyfoo 3y ago
Context. I can say the sentence “I’m playing this record for you live on air now”, and everyone knows what is meant. So did you when you read the headline, presumably. These are not mathematical terms.
689.
by anyfoo 3y ago
In university, I had fun actually applying lambda calculus. Here’s a very silly python script. # a factorial function written entirely with just single-argumented lambdas # and calls fac = ((lambda p: p(p)(lambda q: lambda n:
690.
by anyfoo 3y ago
... huh!

More ›