xorcist

48 ms·

721.
by xorcist 2y ago
You can always inspect what you are running right now . Again, they literally own the software. They could augment it at runtime, or do whatever else they desire. You have to trust them that they don't copy your data. How the tran
722.
by xorcist 2y ago
Whatsapp is not something you can compile or inspect easily. They own the endpoint, in that specific meaning. They may not have root access on the device, but inside the client nothing is out of scope. It is their client. Any data you enter
723.
by xorcist 2y ago
Didn't Jobs say something along the lines of that the problem with Microsoft is that they don't care about their products? Things like this shows how literally that is true. Make a product, sell a product, what could possibly be
724.
by xorcist 2y ago
However there is a whole ecosystem of clients, and they can't all be back doored. You are also free with write your own client, and many do (which is why we have so many in the first place). Protocols, not platforms, people!
725.
by xorcist 2y ago
If you sell your keyboard as a service to people in questionable lines of business, then yes, you will need to comply with these laws. You can probably also expect a visit from three letter agencies. Which these targeted platform companies
726.
by xorcist 2y ago
"We kill people based on metadata"
727.
by xorcist 2y ago
This is part of the trans Atlantic trade agreements. They have a certain responsibility, having negotiated them, but they clearly feel they are beneficial in some way.
728.
by xorcist 2y ago
Nonsense. Whatsapp owns both endpoints. They could know perfectly well what you write, when you write it, to whom, and anything their heart desires by way of their analytics. The messages themselves contains no business value to them. They
729.
by xorcist 2y ago
This argument is more thought provoking than people may think. What we see is a shift of power. Electronic communications started out as private enterprises, then mostly taken over by states because of the need centralization, and now almos
730.
by xorcist 2y ago
If you are in the business of selling SMIME clients as a service to other people, then yes, you would need to implement this if the law passes. Maybe there's an unintended upside to all this regressive business legislation. With all th
731.
by xorcist 2y ago
Well, hence (functional). Making the client forget a token sounds trivial. But there's a long tail of clients out there, and many cases where things might get more complicated. Maybe I'm damaged from working in a regulated industr
732.
by xorcist 2y ago
Another way to put it: "Do you want a (functional) logout button?"
733.
by xorcist 2y ago
> Why don't they do that on all microwaves? They used to, but the standing waves are formed by the cavity geometry, so it's not nearly as good as rotating the platter.
734.
by xorcist 2y ago
Approximately 100.0% of all Hadoop installations. I worked at a place where they finally ditched their Hadoop project after a couple of years and who knows how much money. Only to implement a big Kubernetes cluster instead, where they four
735.
by xorcist 2y ago
There's the Makita BBY 18V foldable bike.
736.
by xorcist 2y ago
After running into traefik a couple of times I have yet to see a deployment where it does not consume more cpu cycles than the microservices it is fronting. From a casual glance it does nothing haproxy doesn't already do, at a fraction
737.
by xorcist 2y ago
While we can wish very hard that credibility is a tradeoff with anonymity, any real world data shows that reality is far from that simple. It is not hard to find Facebook groups that are far far more toxic than most Reddit groups, for examp
738.
by xorcist 2y ago
> Americans who make the same arguments they make about elections What is that argument like, in practice? "I will not tell you who I am, but I demand to vote!" > that's inevitable for any identity system where identiti
739.
by xorcist 3y ago
I often enable DEBUG on specific conditions when troubleshooting. It helps if I don't have to invent a complete logging layer because some person had the idea that only INFO should be in the code.
740.
by xorcist 3y ago
I have entertained similar thoughts, but then on the other hand people already , and with some righteousness, criticize git for being too complex. It also requires careful assessment where the wormhole ends, how many levels of grouped comm
741.
by xorcist 3y ago
That's just regular "learning". It's just that for some people it's a bit out of fashion.
742.
by xorcist 3y ago
> advantages of merge is that you can squash your local commit history No, it's the other way around. Squashing is a type of rebase. Most workflows involve both. Merges can also be fast-forward merges, which are indistinguishable fr
743.
by xorcist 3y ago
If you find yourself fixing the same rebase conflicts over and over again, because you for some reason need to work on conflicting changes simultaneously (which is of course best avoided for other reasons), use "git rerere".
744.
by xorcist 3y ago
Commits are for saving your current work. Commit early, commit often. Just clean them up when you're done! Don't push half-baked work on other people! You waste their compute cycles needlessly, from now until the end of time.
745.
by xorcist 3y ago
Why do you think it was squashed? This article is clear about this being a merge commit. This person got a merge conflict and decided that this was the best way to fix it. It probably worked on their machine. Perhaps not necessarily the opt
746.
by xorcist 3y ago
No. The holy grail would be TL;DRs written by the actual author, at the time of writing the actual article. No one can better know what the important points are and how to best highlight them. The work of producing a good abstract is a tiny
747.
by xorcist 3y ago
The point is to separate the cleaning stage from the import stage. Having a clean utf-8 csv makes debugging import issues so much easier. And there are several well working csv tools such as the Python one, that can not only detect characte
748.
by xorcist 3y ago
I'd be surprised if a non-negligible fraction of investors actually made that calculation. Most buy for other reasons. Then we have the ginormous index funds who buy when buys are happening. We just collectively decided that the best t
749.
by xorcist 3y ago
That's perhaps the weirdest insult attempt in a long time. Perhaps not removing the tiny spider like creatures that suck your blood could be something to brag about in some overly macho context. But removing them? Of course I remov
750.
by xorcist 3y ago
Yes, but we know where those coins are now: in circulation. And we have a good grasp how many that is and how many could possibly on on those shelved laptops. It is literally how every coin in circulation was minted as there is no central p

More ›