bialpio

38 ms·

1. 451.▲
   by bialpio 7y ago

   See, I wouldn't define pooped out unused food as being "in". If you want, you can define it as "in", but then you need to also include the pooped out energy in the "out" column.
2. 452.▲
   by bialpio 7y ago

   There's a deref of main.node and dereferencing null pointer is UB so it couldn't have been null?
3. 453.▲
   by bialpio 7y ago

   First thing that came to my mind when reading this is Windows' WMI with its WQL: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQL
4. 454.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   US dominates EU w.r.t. salaries in CS, so they are able to hire top talent. As for other dominance, it's always fun to watch the results of ICPC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Collegiate_Progr...
5. 455.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   Not really, the function is still f(key) = <some number>, the rest is just taking the number and mapping it to the hardware that you're on.
6. 456.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   Actually, I might have misunderstood you. In your example, the index in the array is treated like the hash of the item you've put in there, why are we suddenly considering pointers?
7. 457.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   It's smaller than the key, but the size of the domain is the number of items you've put in the array.
8. 458.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   Isn't it something that more legalese in T&C could solve? Or a huge warning before simplified terms? I think I've seen few companies publish simplified terms, but I'd have to search for the examples now.
9. 459.▲
   by bialpio 8y ago

   I'm eagerly waiting for Facebook to release T&C with terms as simple as "SMOKING KILLS". Yes, companies have to cover their asses and legalese is complex, but I'm assuming that nothing prevents them from having simpl
10. 460.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Thanks for clarifying! Although I don't agree with the sentiment that OS should be responsible for these particular security issues...
11. 461.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    I think I'm missing something here. How is a bug in Apache an issue with OpenBSD?
12. 462.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    You forgot to mention the talk's subject.
13. 463.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Oh, I don't know about morality, didn't realize we are discussing it here. All I know is that you have 2 options: either ignore the law but make sure you are ready to face the consequences, or don't ignore the law. I don&#x27
14. 464.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Actually, we did. I own a house and I have to go through the pain of jumping thorough all the hoops of applying for renovation permits. If you can just ignore the law, it's a slap to the face for all the people that follow it, irrespec
15. 465.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Got it, thanks!
16. 466.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    WPF apps are supposed to work on .NET Core and .NET Core is multiplatform so I'd say it's not windows-only - am I missing something here?
17. 467.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Yup, just like letting your employees eat during work hours is "wasting employees' time"... They have to eat anyway!
18. 468.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    You would if someone told you to replace trim() with eval(). :-)
19. 469.▲
    System Insights – ML Built into Windows Server(docs.microsoft.com)

    2 points by bialpio 8y ago|0 comments
20. 470.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Hi Peter, thanks for doing this! Have you started noticing any problems with naturalization applications since Trump took over?
21. 471.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    To me it seems that the answer to this question is contradicting your answer to "Can a F1,J1 or H1B visa holder register a company outside USA (home country)?" - am I missing something? Or are we assuming that just "registeri
22. 472.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    But just because it requires changes affecting companies outside of EU that doesn't make the jurisdiction global. It's the same as with any other product that you are selling - if you want to sell it in EU, it has to satisfy EU&#x
23. 473.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    But how will you influence that said software if there's no way for you to talk to the device? This closes one exploitable avenue after 7 days - now attackers need to find something else.
24. 474.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    I guess because now you have no way of exploiting any bugs that might've been exploitable. Within 7 days the phone will still try to talk to others connected to its port, after 7 days it'll just charge. I assume that "power o
25. 475.▲
    by bialpio 8y ago

    Well, humans have 2 cameras that they are able to rotate & a brain and that seems to be sufficient for them to drive in terms of hardware... :-)
26. 476.▲
    by bialpio 9y ago

    Yup, but you still are supposed to, you know, "STOP". :) And isn't it done on purpose? This way, you are not breaking the knees of pedestrians that are crossing the road & you are not sending bicyclists flying. Stop, slow
27. 477.▲
    by bialpio 9y ago

    I always found it hard to understand what's so difficult in actually stopping when the sign clearly says "stop". The wording hardly leaves any room for misinterpretation, doesn't it?
28. 478.▲
    .NET Application Architecture guidance(microsoft.com)

    1 points by bialpio 9y ago|0 comments
29. 479.▲
    by bialpio 9y ago

    Can someone shed some light on what exactly "reproducible" means in this context?
30. 480.▲
    by bialpio 9y ago

    So is there no way to check the call stack and only "tweak" the result if you are being called from the verifier? Or only return "true" on the 2nd call to the comparison? Just some random ideas.