rfgplk

9 ms·

181.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
I know _for a fact_ that most companies don't care. There might be a select few out there that genuinely do, but most don't. I've literally reported numerous GLARING vulnerabilities to companies in various different industrie
182.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
Most companies sadly don't care about security whatsoever.
183.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
> However it happened, the absolute maniacal obsession with job experience has ruined the market. The problem isn't necessarily with job _experience_. It's the acronym. Most employers seem to believe that YOE stands for years o
184.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
Is it the same algorithm or a similar domain? Overlap can exist
185.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
brilliant
186.
Show HN: Micron: a high performance C++23 (re)implementation of Libc and the STL(github.com)
6 points by rfgplk 5mo ago|3 comments
187.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
> I am not sure what GP is objecting to. Elixir always felt like it would be a solid functional systems programming language, so not having a compiled backend is a genuine downside.
188.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
It's just pure marketing, and most people are falling for it. The primary issue stems from their definition of "vulnerability". Most C code will be _swimming_ in vulnerabilities depending on how you analyze it (ie function th
189.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
It probably isn't, at least in terms of security or memory safety. The current models can already sniff out all memory vulnerabilities with relative ease, you can't really beat that.
190.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
> Or better yet, just switch everything to full POSIX. Really not possible as most of POSIX semantics arise naturally from the kernel (or are enforced/executed at the kernel level). Windows technically provides some of them (or sema
191.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
Isn't this just a restricted uutils fork? With most functionality culled for no good reason? "uname isn't useful on Windows" how? OSName/ Build numbers / systeminfo all exist?
192.
by rfgplk 5mo ago
There's almost no point to this, especially since they're already shipping a (strictly) limited subset with the reasoning "not useful on Windows" despite Windows equivalent facilities _clearly_ existing. They should have