knorker

NSA chief also says water is wet.

Having the word "secure" as part of the product name is pretty brave, especially if you're Cisco.

Sure, but you could have done that without pimpl, too. At least without defaulted or inlined constructors/destructors/etc.

I read the parent commenter as proposing headroom.

Because if it's an exact match, then it doesn't help at all with ABI compat, and arguably doesn't add anything. Well, aside from compile time, but that's maybe better solved with modules?

Not sure what toolchain has to do with your code retaining ABI compat like size. Nor how dynamic linked library helps. Dynamic linked libraries are exactly the ones that have the most use for pimpl to maintain ABI compat.

Yup, agree that in some cases this fixes it. Indeed, in another comment[1] on this comment branch I said "Not everyone works at Google and builds all binaries from scratch from a monorepo every time".

So you're only trying to solve compile time issues (incremental and not)? Maybe the right long term solution is C++ modules, instead? And maybe "just" a matter of having your build environment support modules?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49034842

I've been thinking about things like that a bit. I see a very useful and safe Rust pattern, and wonder if I can possibly implement it in C++. Mostly the answer is no, because C++ is too powerful.

I would love to proved wrong, but everything I can think of still leaves a footgun that's easy to trigger by accident, and thus negates the point of the solution.

I think the can't-reference-after-moved-from and objects-are-not-Copy-by-default are key to creating these types (at least enforced at compile time). And that would require major language changes, at least as big as the C++11 changes.

Not everyone works at Google and builds all binaries from scratch from a monorepo every time. And even then, maybe even Google doesn't rebuild libstdc++ as part of this.

GNURadio consistently uses pimpl for blocks, as I understand it mainly for ABI.

> willing to stop improving.

I think that dismissing it like that shows a naive understanding of execution environments, binary interface design, and in general systems software engineering.

But if the pimpl size grows too big, you're forced to break ABI?

And before it grows too big, it wastes memory. For your use cases it may not matter, and the saved pointer indirection may be more important, but maybe the person who has a million item vector of objects doesn't appreciate a 300% "just in case" memory overhead. The overhead may also hurt cache hits.

If you're doing this to save the pointer indirection, you should benchmark it for every use case, since negative cache effects may dwarf that gain.

Then again, extra padding can also help performance, for some workloads (especially multi threaded read/write against a vector of objects).

So without further context, there's no way to say if your way hurts or helps. It's certainly not a general solution.

pimpl also makes it much easier to make changes without breaking ABI. E.g. shared libraries.

And when thinking of passkeys, remember that Amazon, who presumably have at least one employed engineer, decided in its infinite stupidity to only allow a single security key to be registered.

So Amazon did not understand FIDO, but J random webmaster is supposed to understand passkeys?

I assume this is another push to force people onto the terrible "new" UI.

When they eventually remove the old reddit, they'll lose this 18 year reddit veteran. No way in hell am I using that infinite scroll abomination.

Yup, "just don't do that, then" is better.

But I have to point out that NL gov did not round up jews, but the bad outcome arrived anyway, from outside the system. So in the example we're talking about, that was not a solution.

Other than that, I agree.

Ironic, since LLMs have had problems counting, and so do you in counting paragraphs.

I felt your comment was so uninsightfully vapid and arrogant that it's uselessness could not be described briefly.

But sure, it does boil down to "sigh, that's not even wrong", but I suspect you not only don't know what that means, but that you would not be curious enough about life to look it up.

I note that you still did not provide a solution. You didn't even describe the requirements, and the problem here starts with a problem definition that doesn't inherently lead to it being either logically unsolvable, or leading to turnkey tyranny.

Edit: I use punctuation because I was born in the 1900s. And was on the internet when this issue started in the 90s, which makes me react to your "why don't we just...".

And if you look carefully, you'll find my punctuation choices are clearly un-LLM-like.

Your comment sounds like a politician who has just heard a magic technical incantation that solves everything.

I'm sorry, you can't just drop "quantum computer", or "zero knowledge proof", or "flux capacitor", and think that you have solved the problem.

Just dropping "zero-knowledge proof" as if it's a mic drop moment is like when Turnbull said "the laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia".

The devil in all this is in the details. Just saying "zero-knowledge proof" is just barely more productive than saying "won't someone please think of the children?".

If you don't have a complete solution, then you're "not even wrong".

In addition to that, you have misunderstood how zero-knowledge even addresses the main problems. Not the technical problems, and DEFINITELY not the meatspace problems.

Sure, but the poster was not just wrong, but wrong like "peace in our time" wrong. "Adolf? What a charming name" wrong.

Amusingly fantastically wrong.

NL may have its own issues like you linked to, but more uniquely had their collected data abused more than other countries in probably the worst event in history.

I'm not even saying your conclusion is wrong. But choosing Netherlands about how information control is safe in the hands of the government is a bit of an own goal.

Like if I was the boss of a train company I would probably not put up a photo of Mussolini as a motivational poster. Well… maybe I would, but only ironically.

> How is, of all things, an age verification app going to make that worse?

What are you arguing for, here? If everything were perfectly anonymous, maybe. But NOT ONCE in history has governments decided to not abuse power. It'd be so easy to just put a tracker in there or something.

All these "think of the children" arguments are ALWAYS red herrings. Literally any action, any freedom denied, can be justified in the fight against CSAM. And so they get rushed through and abused.

The EU DNS filter (CSAADF) was literally IMMEDIATELY abused to block other things too.

"It's just age verification". Is it, though? How do you verify age without verifying identity? How do you verify its use, without tracking. Provably without tracking. Provably without what's called "turnkey tyranny"?

I think if your argument, which is an extremely common argument, is "I just want to block children's access to bad stuff on the Internet", then you cannot possibly have been paying attention to this debate that's been going on since at least the mid 1990s. Were you even born when this was being discussed? If that's your argument then you have about 30 years of catching up to do before you should speak.

[1] yes, I know Mussolini did not in fact make the trains run on time.

Funny you use Netherlands as a good example, considering that famously, their existing unusually thorough registry was super helpful for the Nazis rounding up jews later.

I don't think it's Godwin's Law when you are so spot on, exactly describing the worst case.

What's worse about negative leap seconds? The "experienced" time by systems will just look like they froze for a second. Added leap seconds are worse, surely, as time goes backwards.

The explanation may be spelled ITAR.

The difference with this kind of tech, though, is tracking down the operator.

It's not a counter example to give examples of what does exist.

And it's not like the BGP daemon is on by default. That'd be dumb. You could equally say that any Ubuntu system has equally many steps to turn on a BGP daemon, starting with `apt install frr`.

I sure hope openbsd's BGPd doesn't have any suid binaries. And if it doesn't, well that might just as well be a vacation photo instead of a binary for all the "code" it is.

I agree that they're punching above their weight, but I would also say that they are falling more and more behind. 25 years ago they were more at par in what use cases they can address, and its performance. But now it's almost retro computing.

And it's fine! If you really only need a bog standard webserver, or router/firewall, then that's the use case and it solves your problem. And solves the problem without baggage.

I wouldn't use it for storage, though, since running a non-checksumming filesystem nowadays is a bit of a joke. (let's not get into btrfs. I acknowledge its history, but checksumming is not backups, and backups address the historical btrfs problems while not addressing at all the checksumming)

> But Bluetooth is basically a giant blast of security vulnerabilities

Yes, but this is exactly the point. And running OpenBSD is not a problem, until you run into a brick wall like this.

If you don't need it (and things like it), then that's all fine. As with everything, the last 10% takes 99% of the work, and code, and therefore contains about 99% of the security problems.

IIRC they were also very late to being able to run virtual machines, and even USB.

If you simply don't implement the things you don't need for a use case (e.g. a webserver) then that scales down to the fact that the compressor controller chip in your (dumb) fridge is not remotely exploitable too.

I'd say it's true. They chose to not implement SMP until consumer CPUs surprised them by going multi thread.

And obsd has no Bluetooth, right? A pretty big subsystem to drop because security.

What do you mean? Are they valid flaws or not?

Would you like it to stop when there's still flaws in the code?

The bitcoin people bought a pardon for their hero, one of the biggest facilitators of drug smuggling in the world, and someone who personally paid money to have people killed. Including explicitly saying to indiscriminately kill whatever unrelated bystander happens to be there.

That was a stated goal for them, and they got what they paid for. So good ROI on that.

They've gotten PAAAAH-LENTY for their money.

Did they get their pet asset to go up in price? No. But they managed to buy "crime is legal now". The shitcoin rugpull industry is making BANK, and the DOJ has been paid off to look the other way.

Investigations have been shut down, and mobsters have been freed. They are not the losers. Society is.

When it's from an industry consisting 100% of organized crime and negative-sum grifting, it's a lot.

I'd read a donation with "from the oil industry" and "from The Organization Of Stealing All Copper from Public Spaces" as different types of "bad", even if I'd prefer that the oil industry also not buy politicians.

For the avoidance of doubt, blockchain people are the copper thieves.

> You’re still making introversion out to be something that you should work at to compensate or fix

Not fix. You just to hold your nose and do anyway, with no expectations if your experience of it ever changing.

Compensate? Not the way I think you mean it, no. Say you hate exercising or brushing your teeth. Ok. Nothing wrong with that. That's not good or bad. But you still have to do it.

Now, am I saying that only the social interaction with random strangers, that only inane smalltalk does it? Of course not.

> I still think when you use terms like "take my medicine" it's like you're trying to cure (or treat) a disease.

Well, that's on you. Especially since I also added "Or getting exercise" and another clarifying paragraph after that.

> For me, being social is tiring and uncomfortable

Exactly my point. "But I don't wanna!". Yeah. That's why i compare it with taking your yucky tasting medicine, or exercising.

> I don't see a benefit.

Pearls before swine, I suppose. Shrug.

> You say this as if introversion is something to be "cured."

Not at all what I'm saying. You don't get cured by exercise either. You're never "done" exercising. It's just a thing you do, in order to have a long term better life.

I don't like talking to strangers. It still tastes like medicine. I have no expectation that I'll ever like it. But I still have to take my medicine, or I'll be worse off long term.

And like being sore if you've not exercised in a while, the aversion to being social is stronger after taking a "solitude vacation". But you can't not do it.

So yeah, you completely misunderstood.