stymaar

12 ms·

331.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> This is not necessarily true. Yes the strait of hormuz is technically in their territorial waters, but it has been recognized as an international water way until recently. Yes, until the US bombed Iran and then signed a terrible MoU th
332.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos against the hundreds of thousands on there The trend is what's interesting here. Github has never been threatened by anyone, because their service was too good to bother
333.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Exactly: tsc was “slow enough to be painful” in the context of the 2.5Mloc codebase of VScode. But it's not too slow for most people. Likewise, Rust may be slow enough to be painful for some big projects that need to often rebuild from
334.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> But you have to compile Rust code to run it. You can run TypeScript code without type-checking it. That’s a massive difference in the development workflow. And yet I'm waiting for TSC every day while almost never thinking about ru
335.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> Why do you think it is not slow? The average cargo check for the projects I've worked on, usually finish in less than 1 second, with `cargo build` completing in a single digit second (often below 2s), it's not slow by any m
336.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> The rust compiler is very slow. It's not “very slow”, that's a tired meme. It's slower than it could/should, but complaining about rustc being “very slow” is a clear misrepresentation, especially when everybody seem
337.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> But I never thought about giving it up due to compiler performance. Exactly, no sound people should consider using another language because the CI takes 4 minutes to run instead of 12 seconds. Yet on HN people complain about rust being
338.
by stymaar 3mo ago
My point is that rustc is still noticeably faster than tsc yet people complain about the former and nor about the later.
339.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Performance improvements, yay ! It always surprises me how little complaints there have been on HN about tsc's performance. I do both TypeScript and Rust at work, and I've seen orders of magnitude more comments on the web about ho
340.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Good ol' days.
341.
by stymaar 3mo ago
I think it's fair to separate it from the direct heat generation because if you look at second order effects like that, pretty much all of the energy ends up being radiated away as infrared in space.
342.
by stymaar 3mo ago
A diesel engine is a very inefficient stove though, as only half (more or less, depending on the exact engine) of the energy is converted to heat, the leftover being mechanical energy.
343.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> That gives some probabilistic info to scraper. Like person might have genes that are: - susceptible to drugs abuse - or game addiction Bam - you get target ads Or even more likely: “your insurance premium has now increased”, “your cred
344.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> But I do want to sequence it using a third-party Don't forget to change your DNA when the third party's database will eventually leak. (see the 21andMe's data leak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23an
345.
by stymaar 3mo ago
It's getting outright fascinating, why do you even stick in this conversation if you don't want to engage in it with more than one ambiguous sentence at a time?
346.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Maybe if you made your point straight instead of making laconic remarks this discussion would be more constructive… All I got from your few words is that apparently you consider the NSA breaking into a random foreign app a reasonable threat
347.
by stymaar 3mo ago
“Cryptography is useless because governments agencies will kidnap you and hit you with a wrench” isn't the hill I expected you to die on TBH. > I kind of don't understand the rebuttal you're trying to write here. Fill free
348.
by stymaar 3mo ago
We love to mock flat-earthers but believe it or not there are many people on HN who don't believe gaskets are a real thing.
349.
by stymaar 3mo ago
That's not true, they decide which one of the bad options they want to buy…
350.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> NSA can simply break in You can't be serious … The NSA can break in the same way the Mossad can assassinate you anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean it's a it's going to happen anytime soon unless you&#x27
351.
by stymaar 3mo ago
I don't think you can be fined in France for that. Though I think you'll be fired without compensation or unemployment benefits.
352.
by stymaar 3mo ago
In my country (France), being an engineer ( ingénieur , in French) is regulated but tied to a particular degree (which must be approved by the Commission des titres d'ingénieur ), and as such I am legally a software engineer .
353.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> I think the whole US vs. non-US thing is total crap It's not. US companies can be subpoenaed in the US. > I always think it's important to point out that US signals intelligence can lawfully compromise foreign communicatio
354.
by stymaar 3mo ago
I don't think that's true. At all point of history, fortifications have never been more than a force multiplier for the garrison manning the fortifications. Send an overwhelming force at it and it will always fall (I don't kn
355.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Only if you manage to deploy malicious code and have it stay there undetected. But in practice this is much harder than having access to a DB or a backup for a few minutes (that's all it takes to leak data). (Just as an example, at my
356.
by stymaar 3mo ago
> Data breaches occur more often than rootkits because most developers see that this path adding easily-removable encryption does nothing in the long run. That logic makes no sense. A rootkit is much more valuable than a data breach (bec
357.
by stymaar 3mo ago
No the argument hasn't shifted. The core point is that any time you use a piece of software, you have to have some level of trust towards the entity that gave you the said piece of software. The way I responded to one particular exampl
358.
by stymaar 3mo ago
Do you seriously think that the average Joe is able to find a backdoor, planted by anyone, in a piece of software they aren't familiar with? Because that what quite literally the claim I was arguing with in the first place.
359.
by stymaar 3mo ago
It's not shifting. It doesn't need to be the NSA, intelligence agencies are just, by far, the most likely attackers against Signal.
360.
by stymaar 3mo ago
See what I wrote above: > in practice “the attacker is able to deploy arbitrary code on your behalf for an extended period of time without being detected ” is a much narrower attack surface than “the attacker is able to obtain read-only

More ›