ori_b

25 ms·

541.
by ori_b 3y ago
The point of LTS versions is that they don't force me to make changes. This sounds like a bug more than a feature.
542.
by ori_b 3y ago
SEEKING WORK | New York, NY | Local or Remote | ~15 years experience Contract, Consulting, Hands on Coding orHelping Teams Execute Hi, I'm Ori. I'm an Ex-Google, Ex-Meta, 2x startup veteran. I love working on hard distributed syst
543.
by ori_b 3y ago
Since when did recreational offroading make something a truck? Wouldn't that make it a toy instead of a working vehicle?
544.
by ori_b 3y ago
https://www.darlinghq.org/ Needs people to contribute to get to the point of running Safari, but the foundation is there.
545.
by ori_b 3y ago
The thing that's always felt slow to me in GTK was resizing windows, not getting pixels to the screen. I'm wondering if adding all these composited surfaces adds a cost when resizing the windows and their associated out of process
546.
by ori_b 3y ago
> Yup. This is my gut to where LLMs will really explode Yes, indeed. This is one place where LLMs can make it look like a bomb went off.
547.
by ori_b 3y ago
I see what you're getting at. I think something like code pointed integrity would be more interesting, and would even protect pointers in vtables and other heap allocated structures: https://www.usenix.org/system/f
548.
by ori_b 3y ago
Don't put return address on the data stack, and don't allow write access to the call stack via anything other than call/ret.
549.
by ori_b 3y ago
Not in San Francisco, but you don't seem to have put any contact info to ping you directly.
550.
by ori_b 3y ago
That's kinda the point: you can't skip it with RAII, unless you avoid exiting a scope (longjmp?). I suppose you can have two versions of the class, and instantiate the leaky one only if you have GC, but that seems like work that t
551.
by ori_b 3y ago
How would you write a library to support both without being fully RAII correct? And if it's fully RAII correct, isn't the GC is a no-op?
552.
by ori_b 3y ago
It doesn't even include assembly.
553.
by ori_b 3y ago
If you accept the premise of the article, you also need to accept that assembly is not a low level language, and that it is impossible to program any CPU currently for sale in a low level language. The abstraction CPUs give you is more or
554.
by ori_b 3y ago
Note, this makes the system more secure, because the manufacturer is no longer a single point of failure, and a compromised key can be rotated by the account owner.
555.
by ori_b 3y ago
I think the requirement here is that the owner of the user account needs to be able to register their own attestation keys. The owner of the account may be an employer or an end user. It must not be a hardware manufacturer.
556.
by ori_b 3y ago
Futures are nicely equivalent to one shot channels with threads.
557.
by ori_b 3y ago
> I like the thread per core design because kernel context switches are expensive You can do a millions to tens of millions kernel entries/exits per second per core. They're on the same order of magnitude as a single digit nu
558.
by ori_b 3y ago
Why would we need people to have endeavors? That sounds like automatable drudgery. Won't the AIs be able to infer what would best maximize engagement for their owners and type the specifications necessary to create whatever the entity
559.
by ori_b 3y ago
Genuine question: What do you think is more important that won't eventually be done with AI?
560.
by ori_b 3y ago
Many local mail clients also just let you pipe the message into a command; for example, in mutt, you could just type: |git am once you have the message open.
561.
by ori_b 3y ago
Can you point at a git commit where someone had a similar bug implemented by accident and fixed it? The code you posted earlier seems to be something that would be incredibly hard to write without malice. And if you're considering mali
562.
by ori_b 3y ago
> Casting as demonstrated in the example is normal and has to be expected. Can you give an example where someone has done similar casts accidentally? It seems like it would be hard to accidentally typo. That leaves malice, which seems di
563.
by ori_b 3y ago
Exactly. Someone could always connect to your program with a debugger and modify the instructions are being run, and that's why you need to regular runtime checks of the validity of your program text. If you want to handle people activ
564.
by ori_b 3y ago
Yes. Pipe the json through gron or similar first.
565.
by ori_b 3y ago
Roughly what you're discussing has been implemented in gcc (behind a flag) for a long time: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks
566.
by ori_b 3y ago
And, thankfully, newer computers have virtual memory and page tables, which means that allocating a large stack only costs one page of physical memory until you use it.
567.
by ori_b 3y ago
More to the point, often you need assembly to prevent the compiler from sabotaging your carefully constant-time algorithms, replacing your careful length-independent XOR loops with branches and the like. Performance is a small part of why c
568.
by ori_b 3y ago
Let's not. FIPS is bad. https://archive.ph/9WNhe
569.
by ori_b 3y ago
> Shall we likewise disable that ability on all general purpose computers? It's being worked on with web attestation.
570.
by ori_b 3y ago
Why? If Google didn't implement it, what would they do?

More ›