jchw

37 ms·

421.
by jchw 11mo ago
> The term is commonly used to mislead people into believing that a certain piece of software is not a compiler, so that knowledge about compilers does not apply to it. Why would people use a word that has the word "compiler" i
422.
by jchw 11mo ago
But, a cashless society is not a panacea. It may be higher tech and more convenient, but it can have significant privacy costs, not to mention the issues with payment card networks engaging in censorship, charging fairly high transaction fe
423.
by jchw 11mo ago
Transpilers are compilers that translate from one programming language to the other. I am not 100% sure where these "lies" come from, but it's literally in the name, it's clearly a portmanteau of translating compiler...
424.
by jchw 1y ago
180 worked pretty well on my Framework 16.
425.
by jchw 1y ago
That I am aware of, but unless I just missed something I've never heard that they ever were designing chips.
426.
by jchw 1y ago
I am pretty sure Apple did not design or manufacture PowerPC chips at any point, so I'm not sure how that would be considered "custom" silicon. And anyway, the source article seems a bit more interesting. https://w
427.
by jchw 1y ago
I tried to donate, but apparently I am not human: > 1 error prohibited this submission from being saved: > Looks like you are not a human Good to know.
428.
by jchw 1y ago
Maybe I've just gotten lucky, but at companies I've worked for I've usually gotten the go-ahead to contribute upstream on open source projects so as long as it's something important for what we are working on. The only r
429.
by jchw 1y ago
> It requires root access If it didn't require root access... it would be a privilege escalation. I don't think that counts as a strike against it. > isn't available in containers Well, you can't apply it inside
430.
by jchw 1y ago
To be fair, the article is not claiming that binfmt_misc is a security vulnerability, or at least I didn't come away with that impression (and the word "vulnerability" doesn't appear in the page either.) It's just
431.
by jchw 1y ago
I responded to this thread of thought: > Any government can get RCE on any OS with the change in their couch. Mainly to agree with it. I believe it is still likely true. Any resemblance to other discussion further up or down is unintenti
432.
by jchw 1y ago
Basically what you are saying is it should be illegal to load that page unless they change it. And it is illegal. They have no interest in changing the page. Therefore, they are preventing the page from loading as a result of legal reasons,
433.
by jchw 1y ago
Stuxnet targeted the specific PLCs used at Iranian nuclear facilities, and had to be able to function in an airgapped environment. I reckon the logistics were far and away more complicated than finding Windows exploits, especially at that t
434.
by jchw 1y ago
> Do you really believe that? That seems extremely implausible based on just simple observations like all governments using COTS OS for military/intelligence work or standard OS:es being used for critical infrastructure like power&#
435.
by jchw 1y ago
While it may not look flattering, it is absolutely a correct usage of the 451 status code. From the standard itself[1]: This status code can be used to provide transparency in circumstances where issues of law or public policy a
436.
by jchw 1y ago
In my defense, I couldn't see that part of the screenshot because of the way the page crops it responsively.
437.
by jchw 1y ago
Local translation, sure. Summarization? No... For one thing, I don't use anything for that (does Google have a "Summarize This" feature now?) But unless I missed it, I don't even think this article disables the local t
438.
by jchw 1y ago
This is my first time hearing of the "WriterDeck" concept, so it's very possible that I am missing some context, but... While booting to text requires less work and less packages, it seems like it has a lot of caveats. Firstl
439.
by jchw 1y ago
Never trust software that doesn't trust you . (And yeah, I know. That's a whole lot of software to never trust.)
440.
by jchw 1y ago
Because there is no isolation whatsoever. A terminal running as root can just be typed into. Some apps can be coerced into code execution when messaging them over X11. You might have to get a little creative, but there's a lot of room
441.
by jchw 1y ago
Hmm, I thought it was Xephyr but I was wrong. It looks like Qubes actually does something even more involved: https://doc.qubes-os.org/en/latest/developer/system/gui.html This makes sense though, given t
442.
by jchw 1y ago
10 kilowatts is 10,000 watts, which is 10,000 joules per second. So... 10,000 joules per second per hour per kilogram. Wait... What ? What in the hell does "10kW/h" mean?! Hopefully they meant kWh. Kilowatt-hours per kg make
443.
by jchw 1y ago
Yeah, with Qubes that's exactly what they do. I forget what the software is called, but they use an X11 proxy that tries to enforce policy. That said though, that does require you to proactively run every X application with this sandbo
444.
by jchw 1y ago
> Why do people keep persisting this myth? X11 has authentication. You can either rely on filesystem permissions, or a shared secret. The same way thousands of other network servers work. Any program you incidentally run within a typical
445.
by jchw 1y ago
One of the main ways that Cloudflare is able to avoid presenting CAPTCHAs to a lot of people while still filtering tons of non-human traffic is exactly that, though: just having a boatload of data across the Internet.
446.
by jchw 1y ago
I was briefly messing around with Pangolin, which is supposed to be a self-hosted Cloudflare Tunnels sort of thing. Pretty cool. One thing I noticed though was that the Digital Ocean Marketplace image asks you if you want to install somethi
447.
by jchw 1y ago
The more I think about all of this nonsense, the more I wonder if Google's entire goal with this is actually to kill ReVanced, of all things.
448.
by jchw 1y ago
I suspect if this mailing list post doesn't go too under the radar, that last sentence will be a source of major regret.
449.
by jchw 1y ago
> We know. We know that current quantum computers are very weak. We do not know what is physically possible, or even feasible. Quantum computers today struggle with decoherence, but we really genuinely don't know for sure if they al
450.
by jchw 1y ago
Even though I agree with you, I totally understand why the push for at least hybrid algorithms. We just don't know how quantum computers could feasibly scale. Until we know for sure that cracking existing crypto systems really is infea

More ›