dooglius

26 ms·

511.
by dooglius 5y ago
Disks aren't free. You'd need to come up with something preventing a bad actor from using Twitter as a personal multi-exabyte storage service. Simple rate-limiting won't work due to Sybil attacks.
512.
by dooglius 5y ago
Uh, that still doesn't paint Tesla in a good light, so this guy bought a car running special experimental firmware by mistake? What if there was a bug and he crashed?
513.
by dooglius 5y ago
Thread model: https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar/-/wikis/threat-mod... Seems somewhat concerning what local/remote attackers can do, especially over "linkable transports".
514.
by dooglius 5y ago
Snowden's publisher was sued and prevented from paying him for the work. What's the deal with the paid subscription option then? Will substack end up just pocketing the money, or is there some legal workaround? For that matter, co
515.
by dooglius 5y ago
I would say that that transformation is legal, it doesn't even involve pointers. I don't think anything I said precludes escape analysis. How would provenance come into play here?
516.
by dooglius 5y ago
To clarify my position, I am not advocating for the situation not to be clarified. What I am advocating is that the resolution to be that pointer provenance be severely limited: roughly speaking, pointers casted to/from integers might
517.
by dooglius 5y ago
> C implementors and standards people went down this road a long time ago I'm aware of that, but just because something was done before doesn't justify it being done more aggressively in the future. This isn't really an ac
518.
by dooglius 5y ago
The concrete model was raised explicitly as a possible option, why can't I compare to that? TFA says that the status quo is ambiguous. >Ptr2int casts were never legal Citation on this? The existence of uintptr_t seems to say otherwi
519.
by dooglius 5y ago
This proposal, specifically it's decision not to use the "concrete semantics", violates several of the stated principles in the C2X charter [0] Specifically "1. Existing code is important, existing implementations are no
520.
by dooglius 5y ago
Are you genuinely claiming that this makes for a SIMPLER mental model (as compared to the implicit "concrete" model)? I don't see how you can justify that...
521.
by dooglius 5y ago
I use Uber with this setup just fine.
522.
by dooglius 5y ago
> minority use-case The amount of code that looks like this in a big enough hot loop to make a difference is negligible. Can you provide even one real-world example where this makes a difference, i.e. not some microbenchmark? The amount
523.
by dooglius 5y ago
You are mistaken, the C standard is quite clear that it does not make any guarantees regarding the behavior of programs that exhibit undefined behavior, and that signed integer overflow is undefined behavior.
524.
by dooglius 5y ago
Either the limit on param is guaranteed in some way by the rest of the program, or it is not. If it is, then the loop count is guaranteed in both cases. If it is not, the loop count is not guaranteed in either case.
525.
by dooglius 5y ago
There actually is a fair amount of truly undefined behavior for CPUs, but it's always at system/kernel mode rather than userspace for security reasons. You can search an ARM ISA for "UNPREDICTABLE" to see examples.
526.
by dooglius 5y ago
The caricatures are somewhat accurate though, optimizations that look at UB adversarially are never anywhere close to justified. > The set of people doing so overlaps with the set of people complaining that the compiler doesn't opti
527.
by dooglius 5y ago
Not that I disagree with you, but it's pretty reasonable for someone to defend his product when it's criticized.
528.
by dooglius 5y ago
I use Tor by default, and while many sites don't work (TFA is behind a Cloudflare captcha, ironically enough), I wouldn't say it's a majority.
529.
by dooglius 5y ago
> No assumption here is idiotic Yes, the assumption that p is non-null is idiotic. Also, the implicit assumption that foo will always return. > no single human was involved Humans implemented the compilers that use the spec adversaria
530.
by dooglius 5y ago
An article on HN a couple months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26442021 claims that our theory of gravity is perfectly fine, we just haven't been taking into account the proper relativistic corrections at ga
531.
by dooglius 5y ago
> most friction-free Maybe it's personal taste, but signing into an account is much more pleasant for me than watching an ad. As for the monetary cost, it only takes one ad per year that works on you to lose as much money anyway. &g
532.
by dooglius 5y ago
The source code may have had UB, but the compiled program could nevertheless have been bug-free. > Any code that invokes UB is not a valid C program, regardless of implemention. I disagree. UB is defined (3.4.3) merely as behavior the st
533.
by dooglius 5y ago
> If that library is statically linked, that one function is compiled into your program. The rest of the library is ignored. At least for gcc, this isn't true unless you pass some obscure flags in; the whole .a gets pulled in
534.
by dooglius 5y ago
It was never valid taking in a generic shared interface to libc, but a statically linked version would have been valid.
535.
by dooglius 5y ago
Getting a 404
536.
by dooglius 5y ago
Unless it's changed, I remember that there's no agree checkbox on the sign-ups page. How enforceable is this?
537.
by dooglius 5y ago
No, because the Linux kernel is designed explicitly as a monolithic kernel, so as long as there is anything anyone wants to do that is "OS-like", it expects to own that.
538.
by dooglius 5y ago
The purpose of calling reps is to air grievances, everyone involved understands this, and they almost certainly have other phone lines for more critical functions. In contrast, a university is contacted for all sorts of reasons related to r
539.
by dooglius 5y ago
This would effectively be a DDOS attack, whether or not you intend it as one.
540.
by dooglius 6y ago
It's not true for 5 people if the "has met" graph is a pentagon, does your intuition here still work?

More ›