loup-vaillant

7 ms·

31.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
Compatibility is a big one. Probably the biggest reason to chose C over Zig or Rust today. But that can be remedied if the new language has a C compilation target.
32.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> I'm sure _someone_ thinks manual memory management is a feature rather than a bug, I reckon mandatory manual memory management is not ideal. But the ability to manage some memory manually, including in cases that require som
33.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> * but if you have accepted the tradeoffs of using dynamic memory allocation then why not GC?* That’s the thing: many do not use dynamic allocation at all. Did you know for instance that you could write an entire modern cipher suite usi
34.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
You know, I’m actually tempted right now to do my own "C with <my-features>". Except I wouldn’t make the same choices as Stroustrup did. For one, I wouldn’t aim for popularity. I’d want something that works for me, and I’d c
35.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> As simple as that, not everyone of us is a Linus. I’m pretty sure Linus could not have written Linux today. Too much hardware to support, too many drivers to write, before it’s remotely useful. Well, except perhaps on some speciali
36.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> If so, why has it not been done? Because of the 30 million lines problem. Writing a serious OS kernel nowadays is flat out impossible: the hardware is just too diverse, it requires too many drivers. The best we can do right now is ju
37.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> A better C++ is by definition a better C The definition is wrong, then. I wrote C++ for most of my career. And as of late, I found myself avoiding more and more features from it. The STL is mostly trash, not worth the increase in co
38.
by loup-vaillant 3mo ago
> Go is a better C already It’s not. Garbage collection made sure of it. I believe everyone agrees that a "better C" has to have manual memory management. Most even rule out Go as a systems language because of GC. Of course,
39.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
> Advances in quantum research and development have shifted the risk horizon. We believe cryptographically relevant quantum computers could arrive sooner than previously expected Aaand, there’s no citation, no reference or link for fur
40.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
It does :-)
41.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
> I write in conversational English. Fair enough. When I write an article (and to a lesser extent even a comment like here), I tend to agonise over every sentence. I’m guessing I’m kinda assuming others do the same. Except of course t
42.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
> recent changes in direction from large Internet providers about quantum computing risks. Do we have reason to suspect Google and Cloudflare have inside knowledge about quantum computers? To me this is more about the end of the NIST c
43.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
I’ve seen arguments that PQ algorithms are easier to implement correctly than ECDH, thus reducing that risk. I’d have to try it myself to really asses that, but for now I believe them. I’d say the real cost is performance.
44.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
In your PQ safety blanket article https://soatok.blog/2026/04/13/hybrid-constructions-the-post... you make it pretty clear the reason you support hybrid is tactical, not cryptographic. Your wording ("Onc
45.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
Applying for a position is a much lower bar than having any chance of landing the position. I’ve interviewed someone for a programming position. The guy practically nailed the standard quiz (done at leisure before the interview), but w
46.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
A solution to this kind of problem is to make sure the funding itself isn’t controlled buy entities you don’t want to control the thing. For instance, the classic model for publicly funded health care, retirement, and unemployment, is for
47.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
Oh my… You familiar with separation of power? Like Judges being funded by the state, and yet, somehow able to stay independent? Shocking, I know. Here’s even more shocking: media are like that too . I mean, okay, they aren’t always. In F
48.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
Okay, let’s just focus on the "remigration" thing, then. Sure, Örebro is not typical, and may indeed be an exception. But. This apparent racism remains cogent evidence that they are also against freedom of expression — even if per
49.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
> I don’t support remigration, but calling immigration “the free expression of people” is a stretch. It’s orthogonal. Far right political parties have a marked tendency to severely restrict freedom of expression once they’re in power.
50.
by loup-vaillant 4mo ago
> The global push to kill privacy makes me sad. Only sad? Like, we already lost and we might as well give up? I’m not sad. I’m scared, and I’m angry . And I’m beginning to think maybe everyone should be too. I mean, in normal circums
51.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> In short the integrity of the application must be secured. This integrity must be protected from everyone. Nothing should be able to violate the integrity of the app. I’m getting a strong sense that you don’t know what you’re talking
52.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> Freedom is worth the price. I generally lean towards that too, including for this issue. But we do need to own up to it. Explicitly ask ourselves, what kind of bad consequences, and how much of them, are we willing to put up with i
53.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
On principle I agree with you. And for me I totally want that, in part because I know how to take care of myself and avoid phishing (I got pwned once, but thankfully it was my company’s honey pot, not actual phishing). Many people aren’t li
54.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
I agree, but then you lose the convenience of centralised match making, and I’m guessing, a number of predatory monetisation schemes. Allowing third party servers however would be a very good way to stop killing games. I don’t believe intru
55.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> No I mean that the operating system protects applications from messing with each other. The operating system should isolate each app for security purposes. Oh but that is far incomplete a specification. What security purposes? Who ar
56.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> Maybe it's not important for applications to be able to require DBCs without attestation. But at first blush it seems like a valid thing to want. It’s definitely something I would want, but as you hinted at yourself, if there’s
57.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
Yes, but that’s not the threat model I was alluding to. The threat model was, you get tricked into executing malware, that will steal your passkey (and your entire password database in fact), and log your master password as soon as you use
58.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> Alternatively, just make it illegal to ship any kind of initial bootloader as part of a CPU's/SoC's mask ROM in any computing device that is marketed as a general-purpose one. Funny, I have a related proposal: make it
59.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> (If it hasn't been done already, an AI-generated short film of it would be a great idea...) Once you have the script, that’s a couple actors in a classroom, a couple e-ink readers for props, the film crew… It can be shot with l
60.
by loup-vaillant 5mo ago
> Passkeys absolutely do not need TPM. They do not, but how does the service you’re using know your passkey is secure? For all they know you’re just some gullible user that clicks through every fishing email you get. You’re dumb, weak,

More ›