buraktamturk

This settings turns reduce transparency and it turns makes the menu bar gray, which looks horrible on a display on notch.

Is there any way to make it black? Like it appears on full screen applications? (apart from enabling the transparency together with a black wallpaper)

Currently even on dark mode it doesn't have a black background while reduce transparency is toggled on.

They do. I do not have to convince you that 2+2=4. If you have read recent European Human Rights Court decisions, you can clearly see what kind of domestic laws is in violation of law. (Yes, I mean some domestic laws are in violation of laws)

Not at all. Laws has to be compatible with universal laws, international treaties/laws such as UN Geneva Convention and for Italy also the EU laws. Along many other conditions such as arbitrariness.

Legally speaking, they can't. It doesn't matter where the ship will be docking. Anything otherwise is a crime against humanity. International laws and EU laws are bigger than any Italian authority and Italian laws that has been ever established.

Article 8: "[...] the webfonts (= WOFF2 files) can be used on up to three websites owned by the license buyer. [...] read–write copies of my fonts can be embedded in word-processing documents that will be shared with fewer than 20 people."

Which is not the same thing with issuing rouge certificates to MitM you, especially for political purposes. For example, a winner of local best talent TV show (Atalay Demirci)'s Twitter account hacked and his messages published online and just because of his ordinary messages with a former Turkish deputy (Hakan Sukur), who is now in exile in the U.S. - he got jailed for political reasons.

So a rouge certificate for *.twitter.com can really ruin ordinary people life in Turkey. We are talking about a human life here.

No government can do it as easy as Turkish government, in many of the countries they have laws and there are mechanisms to ensure they are followed - if not there are punishments. Turkey does not have laws as for 2022 (they only exists on paper and no one cares). If Turkey does this there won't be any punishment to itself for harming the CA company and any journalist reporting this incident will be thrown to jail, if not killed for exposing Turkish Intelligence secrets.

The probabilities talk. 0.00001% this is happening in Europe (which would ended up with punishment for liable parties) vs. >50% this is happening in Turkey (punishment of journalists for exposing this etc).

It is very easy for Turkish government to issue fake certificates via a Turkish company. They did it with Turktrust once (CA certificate issued to EGM and EGM issued a cert for *.google.com, EGM stands for Turkish Police), they can do it again.

There is law in Turkey which is passed in the state of emergency (2016) and these laws later become permanent. If the government demanding anything from a Turkish company and this demand will not be complied quickly, then the government takes the control of the company (replacing boss, changing banking passwords) temporarily in order to comply. This process does not involve judicial authority but an administrative one. It wouldn't matter if it involved judicial authorities because justice system is worst kind of joke.

I know it because they took control of our company in 2016. The reason in the decision: "inspector found no evidence of tax evasion, which is suspicious for a Turkish company, therefore we take control of the company." (not joking)

I rather have my VPN track me than ISP does. For example, connection to Signal and Kakaotalk servers is used as an evidence of being a member of a terror organisation (!) in Turkey. Evidence is gathered by Ministry of Communications from the ISPs, whom they have to provide real-time connection data to the State including CGNAT records. With a VPN, it is almost impossible (depending on setup, i.e. NAT) to obtain such an evidence - especially for political purposes, even if the VPN provider willingly give logs, no way to prove that info is legit.

America is a free country. If we are talking about addictions, parents should use built-in or third party software to control their child's screen time, or their online activity - or block specific social media platform altogether. If this kind of addiction is a serious issue, there should be, both public and private, awareness campaigns. Censoring things always backfire, I never saw a case that it worked as intended.

I really hate China because of their genocide against Uyghurs. But this sentence is pretty unreasonable:

"some employees in China, in charge of clearing internal security protocols, can indeed access certain information from United States-based TikTok, such as public videos and comments."

I mean no one can prevent anyone to have access to "such as public videos and comments", including the public data in other social media platforms.

Other social media platforms are manipulating as well. Including Facebook (Cambridge Analytica) and Twitter (famous journalists accounts blocked in Turkey, for example former NBA star Enes Kanter Freedom's tweets can not be seen in Turkey isn't it a manipulation alone? and it has been proven that Turkish Intelligence with Ministry of Internal Affairs using bots to manipulate the social media and Turkish Police regularly posts serious statistics about some hashtags - including the number of tweet belonging to what they call as "terrorists". I mean basically Turkey has more powers on U.S. data than this specific TikTok employee mentioned in the article had).

I am not sure about Linux kernel internals and I/O operations. However, on Windows kernel the filesystem (or any driver incl. networking) can complete an I/O operation in non-blocking way, it just marks the IRP (descriptor for I/O operation) is pending and complete it later in different context (i.e. in an interrupt handler even when it is in different process/thread context). Since the user mode application can wait for multiple different kind of objects at the same time (this includes networking, file, mutexes, events), I guess in theory it can really scale when thread_count = core_count.

The same exact thing happened after 15 July 2016 (Erdogan staged a coup attempt on his own) in Turkey. To put it simply it was the beginning of the genocide of peaceful Gulen movement members or anyone who had any kind of connection with them in the past.

The bank that I had account + credit card was shut down (stolen by Turkish state) with the decree laws. My brother had an additional account in another bank. That bank terminated his account and credit card using decree laws as a reason, no court order.

We lost our jobs, money and freedom in a single night. Our company was shut down by the state without due process. My relatives, friends and colleagues got jailed and tortured by Turkish police and soldiers. We got fired and almost none of us were able to get employment (we got work permits revoked) code 36 (fired due to decree laws) is on social insurance records. University degrees of some of us cancelled by the decree law. There are thousands of things I want to tell but it is too long. At the end my brother became a permanent resident in Canada via asylum and I am an asylum seeker in Greece (decisions take way long here). My relatives and friends still in jail in Turkey.

To put it simply, what Canadian government is planning right now is a clear way to go for genocide. Killing people economically is a part of genocide method (don't ask me where I know it).

It worked only once for me (str.split('').reverse().join('') one).

But this one didn't:

function isOddNumber(num) { return !!(num%2); }

Testing for input computer: FAILED! Expected: retupmoc | Got: undefined eval code@ eval@[native code]

There are many old games that runs some kind DRM system that is using deprecated Operating System API's - some of them are undocumented and mostly operated in ring 0.

Just because you pirated a game that you own a copy, in order to play it on newer version of operating system does not make you criminal. You may need a court decision only if you are not able to private or fix it without the company help but that's all.

I don't think that is entirely true. For example, if a cheating happens in an online game you don't wait a court decision to ban the player - taking the justice on your hands and expect to not be punished. Or killing a person is illegal but you can use your self-defence rights if the other person is trying to kill you. You can use interfaces from copyrighted language (Oracle v. Google) for fair use purposes without getting a court decision first.

If the thing that you are trying to do is legal by universal laws, international laws and national laws (in order). You don't really need to worry.

In that stealing example let's assume someone stole something and you "stole" it back. Good luck for the first stealer to initiate a court case - which probably the stealer will not initiate because he will lose it plus with the expenses for the court. No court case meaning no complains therefore no crime.

If I remember correctly the CreateFileEx win32 api takes a flag and template file handle to copy when creating a new file. Maybe the copy operations can use this api and expect AV software to ignore the operation. (I have no idea about the performance of such approach) Or maybe a syscall (preferably at filesystem level) that can be introduced for bulk copying purposes and AVs can ignore such calls.

Well there is a difference as stated on the article that they don't expect to see CP or CSAM and says "We are not 'knowingly' seeing it since it makes up less than 0.06% of the uploads ... We do not intentionally look for CP."

Whereas Apple is moderating the suspected images so they intentionally look for CP (which, according to the author and his lawyer, is a crime).

Except if you are the actual victim of these e-mails and the politicans who control 95% of the media are able to trick people either making them belive it was fake or it had "national interests" and they did it because of "country".

At least these e-mails are believed to be true in other countries. So does Authenticity of thes e-mails can easily help you when you seek asylum in country from a country where they declared you as a terrorist - internationally.

Hey Google. Please never do this. This would throw thousands of evidence about how Erdogan regime worked with terror organisations, including the e-mails that tried to ban social media to stop these evidences be available to public. And also how they declared innocent people as terror organisations with some companies that offered law support. For example, this one https://wikileaks.org/berats-box/emailid/35540 especially verifies a crime - Turkish Airlines Nigeria Weapon transfer as it marks the event as "Government Secret"; The evidence that they talk on this e-mail involves a call where the ministers talk "I don't know if they will use it to kill Muslims or Christians".

That specific e-mail does not have DKIM signature (maybe because it was sent his own gmail address? or to an gmail address in general?).

I am aware that even if they publish the DKIM secrets, these e-mail will not lose any value since these e-mails was posted before the secrets.

But I think using e-mails as evidence should be a thing in general. As you could receive them to your personal e-mail server and want to authenticate and use it on a court, even years after. If they publish the keys, it would not be possible as you could be the one who forged the e-mail as it were received from somebody else and has been put to your IMAP server manually.

async/await is the first class citizen .NET and C#. You just mark your function as async and return Task<OriginalReturnValue> and you can call any async function with await, just like js.

This problem can be solved easily with using an open-source extension that has reproducible builds. Make sure it doesn't have built-in tracker as easy as looking to the source code. And we can make sure the final hash (without software signature blob) of the extension is the same as your built, so it is not tempered before uploaded to the extension store.

not on remote sessions with local clipboard

> A Partial Segment must be completely available for download at the full speed of the link to the client at the time it is added to the playlist.

So with this, you can not have a manifest file that point to next future chunks (e.g. for up to next 24 hours of live stream) and delay proccessing of http request until the chunk became available. Like HTTP Long Polling used for chunks.

> On the surface, LHLS maintains the traditional HLS paradigm, polling for playlist updates, and then grabbing segments, however, because of the ability to stream a segment back as it's being encoded, you actually don’t have to reload the playlist that often, while in ALHLS, you’ll still be polling the playlist many times a second looking for new parts to be available, even if they’re then pushed to you off the back of the manifest request.

Which could be avoided if Apple didn't enforced the availibilty of download "at the full speed" once it appeared in the manifest. (long polling of chunks)

LHLS doesn't have this issue as the manifest file itself is streamed with chunked responses hence it makes sense. (streaming manifest file)

> For the time being at least, you’ll have to get your application (and thus your low latency implementation) tested by Apple to get into the app store, signaled by using a special identifier in your application’s manifest.

And this makes me to think about the implementability of the 1st and 2nd point on ALHLS. Maybe the current "implementation" is compatible but not with the specs itself.

I remember in TLS 1.3, a middle box can not modify a single byte in the negotiation, or otherwise, the connection fails (a checksum validation on server and client side). TLS 1.2 somehow has this but the coverage is less (it only happens for chipers etc).

I don't know about the "new versions" of Visual Studio 2017. But VS from 2008 to 2015 installs very slowly (IO wasn't the bottleneck), triple the installation time if the iso file has service packs (I remember that they are applied in "Finalising your setup" progress with bars showing 100%). The latter one is also applies to Office setup.

I wonder what prevents them to order TurkTrust to issue ssl sertificates to do this kind of attack to the secure websites. Turkey recently has gained power to take over companies, if they don't comply with their order (temporary, State-of-emergency law). I think they had issued a certificate to *.google.com before: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/01/08/the-turktrust-ss...

edit: Ankara was the target. Like this one.

except you have to move the rest of the data when you edit the document or you can fragment the data but the old data will still be on memory / memory mapped file / file.

The same company also cheats on issuance date to support SHA1 signatures. I heard it on HN on another topic.

Edit: source https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.security...

Incident 2 ----------

In July 2016, it became clear that there was some problems with the StartEncrypt automatic issuance service recently deployed by the CA StartCom. As well as other problems it had, which are outside the scope of this discussion, changing a simple API parameter in the POST request on the submission page changed the root certificate to which the resulting certificate chained up. The value "2" made a certificate signed by "StartCom Class 1 DV Server CA", "1" selected "WoSign CA Free SSL Certificate G2" and "0" selected "CA 沃通根证书", another root certificate owned by WoSign and trusted by Firefox.

Using the value "1" led to a certificate which had a notBefore date (usage start date) of 20th December 2015, and which was signed using the SHA-1 checksum algorithm.

* The issuance of certificates using SHA-1 has been banned by the Baseline Requirements since January 1st, 2016. Browsers, including Firefox, planned to enforce this[2] by not trusting certs with a notBefore date after that date, but in the case of Firefox the fix had to be backed out due to web compatibility issues. However, we are considering how/when to reintroduce it, and CAs presumably know this.

* The issuance of backdated certificates is not forbidden, but is listed in Mozilla's list of Problematic Practices[3]. It says "Minor tweaking for technical compatibility reasons is accepted, but backdating certificates in order to avoid some deadline or code-enforced restriction is not."

* WoSign deny that their code backdated the certificates in order to avoid browser-based restrictions - they say "this date is the day we stop to use this code"[4]. If that is true, it is not clear to us how StartCom came to deploy WoSign code that WoSign itself had abandoned.

* It seems clear from publicly available information that StartCom's issuance systems are linked to WoSign's issuance systems in some way. Nevertheless, it should not have been possible for an application for a cert from StartCom to produce a cert signed by WoSign.

* This misissuance incident was not reported to Mozilla by WoSign as it should have been.