halosghost

14 ms·

91.
by halosghost 11y ago
Continuing my streak of posts regarding preference which likely apply nearly only to me[1], I will gladly take on this question! As with the others, I should reiterate that I am a niche user and that the things I want will likely not be wan
92.
by halosghost 11y ago
First of all, good for atavist. They recognize their market, and are following the path of greatest efficiency and effectiveness. Sounds like great business sense to me. Now, on the other hand, I have to say, this kind of thing always bums
93.
by halosghost 11y ago
I completely agree. In general, the only warnings I get on my code anymore are ones related to how a library I use does something. In those cases, I surround those particular library calls with no-warn pragmas for that particular warning an
94.
by halosghost 11y ago
When I first saw the announcement, I was really annoyed since I am a PTS backer. But, with the offer they're giving so that I can test out the new one, I'm pretty okay with it afterall. In fact, given that one of the reasons drivi
95.
by halosghost 11y ago
This! I religiously use clang's -Weverything -Werror. Does it mean I spend more time dealing with false-positives? yes (though honestly, not that much). Does it also mean I end up writing much better code? yes, absolutely.
96.
by halosghost 11y ago
I have not found one yet; I do not believe one has been posted at the moment. But, I would love to see the actual talk and the Q&A as well. Here's hoping one gets posted.
97.
by halosghost 11y ago
This is great to see! I don't know if it was inspired by runhaskell, but it does appear to be similar. I have to say, this kind of tool is something I have come to feel is incredibly helpful and important for my dev workflow. I spend m
98.
by halosghost 11y ago
Honestly, I would not be able to use this unless it had, at least, a native C library. Having it be bash-reliant, though quick and simple, makes it much harder to actually use it in anything native (shelling out is generally a BadTime™). I
99.
by halosghost 11y ago
No. A Black rook would have allowed black to b8b7 and block the white rook from the final checkmate. A knight, on the other hand, would not be able to block the white rook and would therefore result in a checkmate.
100.
by halosghost 11y ago
On closer look, it seems node is a makedep, not a runtime dep.
101.
by halosghost 11y ago
Actually, the link is just fine; it appears that you have discovered a bug in HN's URL matching algorithm. < and > are explicitly recommended by the URI RFC [1] as delimiters for URLs. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/h
102.
by halosghost 11y ago
Give a shout-out to the Author(s). They are quite responsive. One of them is on the verge of rewriting pb overall to leverage some nicer things that have been created since pb's creation along with making it even faster (despite the fa
103.
by halosghost 11y ago
You don't. Ix is not Open-source. Sprunge (an alternative) is, but I never found it to be very simple. This is one of the things I so love about pb (see my other comment ITT).
104.
by halosghost 11y ago
Even better than that; it only serves over https. :D
105.
by halosghost 11y ago
I'd recommend pb < https://github.com/ptpb/pb> . It is free and open-source (so you can easily host your own deployment of it—it's even in the AUR for Arch users: < https://aur.archlinux.org&
106.
by halosghost 11y ago
Exciting to finally see the release! But the feature I was most interested in appears to have been pushed to 3.8. Namely, the addition of -fsanitize-trap=undefined (which will allow for some parts of UBSan to run at compile-time rather than
107.
by halosghost 11y ago
Okay, so I know I'm a little odd, but my immediate reaction to this: “Oh snap! I should totally uninstall my WM!”
108.
by halosghost 11y ago
Ahh, you appear to be completely correct! The project I was referring to had a software component as well (which is on GitHub); I mistakenly associated the two. My apologies! I will leave my GP comment here in case people find the other pro
109.
by halosghost 11y ago
It seems like you've missed the point. The problem isn't that companies are using the work without paying. The problem is that the unnamed companies are essentially lying in their marketing and violating the grsec trademark in the
110.
by halosghost 11y ago
I was part of the indiegogo campaign to get the lantern [1] off the ground. I've heard very few updates from them since the campaign ended; here's hoping they still pull it off! [1] https://www.indiegogo.com/projec
111.
by halosghost 11y ago
This is such a bummer! I just recently switched over to grsec (on Arch) and I could not be happier with the results; seriously, it has made such a huge increse in security so simple to navigate. The Grsec team does incredible work; that no
112.
by halosghost 11y ago
Actually clang has a static analyzer that is free and pretty usable. Additionally, I religiously use `-Weverything -Werror` for C and specifically disable warnings I know to be false positives. People have told me that it is excessive, but
113.
by halosghost 11y ago
Many of these look like great suggestions; however, I am always a little worried when I run into “C/C++”. I realize many of the suggestions in this seem to be fairly compatible with both languages (some of them certainly aren't; e
114.
by halosghost 11y ago
Actually, many of the advanced text editors offer plugins that replicate a variety of the functionality you mention. To better answer your question, I am forced to reveal the text editor I prefer (please do not take this comment as a slant
115.
by halosghost 11y ago
Interesting notion. I am inherently skeptical, because, like many I imagine (and as the article actually discusses), I am squarely in one of the text editor camps (which shall remain nameless to avoid anyone thinking I'm intending on a
116.
by halosghost 11y ago
No. What you point out are not problems with the theoretical Right to be Forgotten, but rather the current implementations of it (which, like I wrote, I have not decided whether or not I can support at all). Also, I said that it should be l
117.
by halosghost 11y ago
I know it's still quite a controversial topic, and I have not yet come down on whether or not I like the current implementations, but I am a fan of the notion of a Right to be Forgotten. At the very least, I like the notion that a pers
118.
by halosghost 11y ago
In my case (and I'm not sure why), HTTP/1.1 consistently got ~5s and HTTP/2 consistently got ~10s. I assume I was supposed to see the opposite result? :P
119.
by halosghost 11y ago
Happy to do it. The last thing I want is for my post to have come across as vitriolic or argumentative; I just wanted to voice the one case of unease the article left me with :)
120.
by halosghost 11y ago
“opt-out” is certainly correct (though, as I understand it, Pocket, as with all parts of Firefox, is only loaded when it is actually used, so “opt-out” does not seem to tell the whole story to me). I do disagree with the “non-removable” bit

More ›