gjadi

What about the JVM? :D

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/index.htm...

If you want to learn about CL packages and namespaces (namespaces are not packages). Take a look at https://gigamonkeys.com/book/programming-in-the-large-packag...

I disagree on the former, but I agree on the later, technology is not a good substitute for consent.

Regarding the privacy:

If you are using a VPN to protect your privacy, then you are effectively transferring your trust from your ISP to your VPN provider. The VPN provider is your new ISP. So you have to make sure you trust the VPN provider more than your ISP.

If your threat is google, it would be wise not to use google in the first place.

As other mentioned, OSM is an alternative (not equivalent) of Google Maps.

Funny thing is, it depends on your threat model.

Using google.com/XXX for all its services protect the user from being spied by external actors such as ISP because everything is hidden behind HTTPS.

Whereas, with XXX.google.com, external actors knows that you are using service XXX.

Well, the US has already a lot of restrictions to companies that want to do business in dollars and not just on Internet companies.

See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bnp-paribas-agrees-plead-guil...

This is a case of trade with countries under embargo.

One of the main use of internet surveillance was trade (e.g. Boeing vs. Airbus deals).

I believe the US department of justice have the right structure to make this kind of fines, part of the fines goes to found the department of justice.

Got it.

Very much like the idea to check the code coverage to find out which tests you should run. First time I saw it. Is it common in other tools?

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.

Though I understand the intent, I think it has the risk to run into a run-hack-run-hack programming style.

I'm currently reading Code Complete which advises against this practice. Instead, one should strive to write code that works from the start instead of hoping it to work eventually.

I thought the thread model of pledge/unveil was to restrict a program that you are writing, but that you couldn't wrap around other program in a safe way.

That is, you can protect your own program from doing network stuff because of incorrect input, but you can't use it to sandbox another program.

See this thread: https://marc.info/?t=162367803300003&r=1&w=2 and this mail about sandboxing: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=162367954705721&w=2

There is a good MOOC on coursera on the topic of learning and creative working: Learning How To Learn by Barbara Oakley (there is also a book).

She talks about focused and diffused mode of thinking. The main idea is that to create new neuron connections (memory or understanding) you've to work hard on a topic - the focused mode - and then take a break - the diffused mode.

By switching modes you help your brain. Of course, you can't just go do something else without working hard first ... :)

I don't remember the details, but I remember some people where comparing traces of execution between the program and the TLA+ code.

If the traces don't match, you've got a problem.

I think hypnosis is sometimes used for anesthesia. So maybe self-hypnosis is also possible.

After a quick look at wikipedia I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hypnosis#Childbirth_anest...

Not sure how solid this is though.

Oh wow indeed!

I didn't follow the news, thanks for the update :)

It makes sense for OpenBSD because:

- it separates /, /usr and /usr/local

- it has special mount options such as wxallowed which is usually enabled on /usr/local only

https://man.openbsd.org/mount.8 / https://man.openbsd.org/fstab.5

On OpenBSD the split is nicely described in https://man.openbsd.org/man7/hier.7

The main difference is about static linking.

> /bin/ User utilities fundamental to both single and multi-user environments. These programs are statically compiled and therefore do not depend on any system libraries to run.

> /sbin/ System programs and administration utilities fundamental to both single and multi-user environments. These programs are statically compiled and therefore do not depend on any system libraries to run.

It was discussed a few month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31336396

Ok, so that's related to consensus algorithm.

Thank you!

What is "ratification intelligence"?

From the article:

> The HPSC processor and X280 compute subsystem is expected to be useful to other government agencies in a variety of applications including industrial automation, edge computing, ratification intelligence, and aerospace applications.

I couldn't find a good answer online.

Well, that's why there is several documents: C-h i

* Elisp: (elisp). The Emacs Lisp Reference Manual.

* Emacs Lisp Intro: (eintr). A simple introduction to Emacs Lisp

* Emacs: (emacs). The extensible self-documenting text editor.

* Emacs FAQ: (efaq). Frequently Asked Questions about Emacs.

And that's not even looking at specialized documentation such as the one for Gnus, for Widget, for Dired-X, for Ediff, ...

I agree with parent, Emacs documentation is some of the best I know and easily searchable.

I believe most SMTP servers talk SSL/TLS, so, yes, sending mail directly to an SMTP server that doesn't belong to the ISP prevent the ISP from reading the mail.

I don't have an answer, but I've a question :P

How do you trigger the behavior? Is it bound to a key or is there a different way to trigger the action?

For example, I'm an emacs user and though I remember a lot of bindings, I also use heavily helm-M-x which provides fuzzy completion on command name.

For example, I may not remember all org-mode shortcuts, but I can do:

M-x org subtree

And I'll get a list of all org-mode commands on subtrees.

(I've never used AHK.)

Lots of interesting links to talks related to C at the end of the articles!

As a cyclist, I fear that indeed, automatic requires less thinking, thus less concentration.

Are there studies on the frequencies of accidents based on manual vs. automatic?

Isn't the issue because we are reluctant to remove stuff? In the same vein as other said we should throw away one or two version of a program before shipping it.

Maybe we need to learn how to delete stuff that doesn't make sense.

Get rid of broken test. Get rid of incorrect documentation.

Don't be afraid to delete stuff to improve the overall program.

Don't let the bad rap hinders you. That has not been my (small) experience with the mailing lists.

You propose a change:

- if it's interesting, you will get advice on how to make it good

- if it's good it will get committed

- if it's not relevant, you will be told

Here are some examples: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=155934125101222&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=156256473722583&w=2

When you look for job in OCaml, you can find several fintech and blockchain related companies.

I don't remember having to complain because of its slowness.

Some operations can take times, such as computing a burndown report, but I don't have comparison with another tool to say if it's slow or not.

Youtrack, from jetbrains https://www.jetbrains.com/youtrack/

I'd say the biggest thing I'm missing in it is a chrono. We track our time worked per tasks and I've been told Jira provides a chrono to do that for you.

I'm using clocking in org-mode anyway, so it's easy to report. But it would be nice if it was provided by the tool itself.

Wouldn't it be possible with ssh -R ?

The device connect remotely to a server that you control and give access back to you.

https://man.openbsd.org/ssh#R

Or setup wireguard and forward PUBLICIP:PORT to PHONE_WG_IP:PORT

For me it's the ease of management and good documentation.

For example, during 6.8 to 6.9 upgrade, there was a major postgresql upgrade.

It is mentioned in the doc https://www.openbsd.org/faq/upgrade69.html (see Special packages at the bottom).

You're redirected to the package README with special instructions on how to setup and upgrade: https://github.com/openbsd/ports/blob/master/databases/postg...

Et voilà, everything is explained.

On debian, if I am not careful, I'll do an upgrade and risk breaking something during a db migration (I'm looking at you MySQL upgrades...).

Yes a standard would probably solve the issue.

But until lawyers push for a standard that would make this part of their work irrelevant, I can't see how it could happen :)