nullifidian

[deleted to avoid potential misinformation]

I should have converted it to $' ', yes. It was posix shell compliant this way tho. (probably written when I knew more python than bash).

>installing many packages

The issue is HOW MANY. This simple utility is in the 100-200 range, Zed editor is in 2000+ range. C/C++ software you find in distros is not only stabilized by the unstable/testing queue, which language repos don't have and don't plan to have, but also has 5-10x less dependencies on average.

I would rather check urls with the following method:

  echo -e -n "https://іnstall.example-clі.dev" | python -c 'exec("""import sys, unicodedata\nfor ch in sys.stdin.read():\n  try:\n    print (ch, " ", unicodedata.name(ch))\n  except ValueError:\n    print ("codepoint ", ord(ch))\n""")'

instead of putting my trust in the hundreds of crates in this tool's Cargo.lock not having a supply chain attack.

>Chechnya

So they invaded their own internationally recognized territory. Wonderful. By that standard Ukraine invaded Donbass after they declared themselves independent of Ukraine.

>Syria

Even more outlandish claim, considering they were invited by the government. Whether the west considered the government illegitimate or not didn't matter.

>Moldova >Georgia

in both conflicts in protection of a minority, on whose territory a larger state laid claim using Soviet drawn borders and dissolution of the USSR. Since the Ukrainian conflict started I observed lots of enthusiasm for Soviet borders on the side of Russia's detractors, which were often drawn with territories assigned as a form of favoritism, simply because communist leadership in Moscow had better a relationship with the communist leaders of one of the ethnicities in question. That way historic Armenian land of Artsakh was assigned to Azerbaijan for example -- the recent ethnic cleansing outcome of that is well known.

I've been using "quasi-monopoly".

If there had been something like this standardized in Markdown from the start, it might have had a chance for wide adoption. Right now, learning to see and use LaTeX math as easily as more ASCII-like notation is just more convenient since it is widely adopted (in GitHub, in VS Code, etc.). It's harder, but it also provides the added benefit of maintaining your LaTeX skills.

I think Google's Chrome team's choices of priorities bear a significant portion of the blame for this. They refused to implement MathML for the longest time, and even when it was implemented, it was partly done and financed by a third party. Without MathML, LaTeX-to-HTML JavaScript hacks became the norm, solidifying LaTeX as the standard even for non-typesetting use cases. Had MathML been implemented by Chrome early on, a more direct and easier translation from something ASCII-like to MathML would likely have been adopted.

This reminded me of the anti-theming sentiment in the gnome developer community https://stopthemingmy.app/

>Nvidia would be willing to cut into its margin to provide

Why would that be optional on a top of the line GPU that requires it? NVIDIA has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about defining an extended ATX standard, that covers PSUs, and it would be optional in the product lines of PSU manufacturers. The 12VHPWR connector support in PSUs is already a premium thing, they just didn't go far enough.

>Because no PC power supply has a 24V rail

Servers with NVIDIA H200 GPUs (Supermicro ones for example) have power supplies that have 54 volt rail, since that gpu requires it. I can easily imagine a premium ATX (non-mandatory, optional) variant that has higher voltage rail for people with powerful GPUs. Additional cost shouldn't be an issue considering top level GPUs that would need such rail cost absurd money nowadays.

>which obviously fall out of scope of the First Amendment.

It obviously doesn't. That would mean the US Government can ban all foreign press, just by designating countries as "foreign adversaries". And "foreign adversaries" is a euphemism for "countries that don't submit". The SCOTUS just invented another exception to the absolutist interpretation.

>wholly uncontroversial indictments of the owners of Tenet Media

>were charged with failing to register as a foreign agent

This entire narrative together with the banning of Tiktok is wholly hypocritical, given the American media, tech, and NGO's influence/dominance around the world.

The moment someone achieved what the American entities have been doing around the world, the non-stop wailing of "foreign adversaries this, foreign adversaries that" started.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a country bordering Russia, the law requiring foreign-financed NGOs to register was declared to "stigmatize organizations that serve the citizens of Georgia" with accompanying travel bans for the authoritarian evil doers who passed said law by the US state department.

>What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

Because obviously changing the owner-editor of a media outlet has everything to do with their editorial policy. The SCOTUS just said that censorship is ok (and forcing the change of the editor is censorship, there is no doubt about it), as long as it's against another state's editorial preferences potentially having a significant audience in the country.

Tiktok algorithms could be considered a form of editorial position(be it foreign government influenced one, or just the type of content they elevate / not remove), and in this sense it is similar to banning a newspaper(which would obviously be censorship) -- journalists could publish in other newspapers. Therefore banning TikTok absolutely is censorship.

>This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control

This is literally like this, and done precisely due to the lack of control due to the illegality of overt/direct speech regulation, and the fears that China would elevate content that isn't in the interest of the US in the broadest sense, but that is still legal according to the 1st amendment. The US Government has tremendously more influence on the local/western platforms, and on people who work there. (There is already an appeals court decision about Biden administration overstepping in communicating with online platforms about what content they don't like). The logic goes "We can't regulate speech like we want to, order what we like and what we don't like, but at least we can remove/censor individual owner-editors that we suspect might harbor some harmful intentions. That means no owners from 'evil' countries". That's about it.

>Rust does not have a culture of "microdependencies"

It absolutely does by the C/C++ standards. Last time I checked the zed editor had 1000+ dependencies. That amount of crates usually results in at least 300-400 separately maintained projects by running 'cargo supply-chain'. This is an absurd number.

Some amount of the risk from the "dependency jungle" situation could be alleviated by instituting "trusted" set of crates that are selected based on some popularity threshold, and with a rolling-release linux-distro-like stabilization chain, graduating from "testing" to "stable". If the Rust Foundation raised more money from the large companies, and hired devs to work as additional maintainers for these key crates, adding their signed-offs, it would be highly beneficial. That would have been a naturally evolving and changing equivalent to an extensive standard library. Mandating at least two maintainer sign offs for such critical set of crates would have been a good policy. Instead the large companies that use rust prefer to vet the crates on their own individually, duplicating the work the other companies do.

The fact that nothing has changed in the NPM and Python worlds indicates that market forces pressure the decision makers to prefer the more risky approach, which prioritizes growth and fast iteration.

It's somewhat similar to 'recoll' in its functionality, only with recoll you need to index everything before search. It even uses the same approach of using third-party software like poppler for extracting the contents.

"Vladislav Davankov" is a token "liberal". He's supposed to make such statements. Nothing that is uttered by Duma members is worth any consideration -- it's a complete theater.

>given the age of this series

It's from the Jul 2019. Not very old. CPUs from the early 2010s, with enough ram, are still perfectly usable for light browsing and text editing tasks.

I tried compiling mandelbrot.c (single threaded one) from the benchmarks game and execution on jslinux took 12 seconds, while webvm completed it in 1.2 sec. The host takes 0.03 sec with the same gcc flags.

>Nobody can do anything and Russia is lost and has become North Korea. I don't believe that. >seems

Can you not sanctimoniously and arrogantly teach people, who actually live in it, what to do, from the comfort of your western home, while knowing almost nothing, as evident from this write up?

The first youtuber you linked is systematically misinformed blabbing head, the other one is an immigrant turned neocon. If these are your sources of information, and you don't know Russian, good luck understanding anything at all.

the roots of silicon valley are in the decades of military contracts, initially, i.e. in the "government-sponsored industrial policy" https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo?t=3546

>So political change in russia is literally impossible

Precisely. It's basically impossible. There has to be at least be a generational change, or a severe economic / military loss if we are talking about this decade, but even that isn't a guarantee since the system is perpetuating itself with force, with economic self-interest to continue doing so. Isolating Russian citizens from western sources of information (in addition to what the Russian government is already doing by itself) is not only not helping, it's counterproductive, since rejection engenders a rejection in return, lowering the probability that an inflection point in the Russian history would result in anything western.

>countries change

Authoritarian countries change when their enforcement class relaxes and loses control. It takes decades for it to occur. If there is no relaxation, then no change occurs, as demonstrated by numerous countries, not only Russia. Right now the control and propaganda are very tight. "Wanting to make change" publicly is literally a life-threatening activity.

Ah, yes, the remaining English speakers in Russia will overthrow the literal millions of the silovik class whose entire job is to repress (with violence) any independent political activity. There is no "lobbying" in Russia, if you didn't know.

If you hate all Russians just say you hate all Russians. No need for this "lobby your government" euphemistic BS.

I think it's important to note that you can't use it commercially.

"The INRIA Non-Commercial License Agreement is a non-free license that grants you the right to use the CompCert verified compiler for educational, research or evaluation purposes only, but prohibits any commercial use.

For commercial use you need a Software Usage Agreement from AbsInt Angewandte Informatik GmbH."

>So the human rights violation is essentially being committed by the population themselves.

While I too find it somewhat weird that the ECHR is involved in climate regulation, I find the appeal to majority/democracy to be missing the point of constitutional legal systems, and European Convention on Human Rights is a sort of a constitution. Without independent judiciary that is not subject to the pressures by the majority (ideally), even democracy itself wouldn't survive, not to mention the rights of the minority, say people who will be displaced or will lose their livelihood due to the climate change (albeit Switzerland should be one of the countries least negative affected by the climate change).

I guess George's 5 hour poking and googling around session, fruitless in terms of the actual results(making compute on AMD's consumer rdna3 chips stable), is newsworthy on HN as of now.

It would have made it worse, because there would be 300 crates with 250 different maintainers, all pulled in by several trivial/baseline dependencies. More dependencies = higher the probability that a malicious maintainer has gotten maintainer's rights for one of them, especially because many original authors/maintainers of rust style microdepencency crates move on with their lives and eventually seek to exit their maintainer role. At least for classic C/C++ software, by the virtue of it being very inconvenient to casually pull 300 dependencies for something trivial, there are fewer dependencies, i.e. separate projects/repos, and these tend to be more self-contained. There are also "unserious" distributions like Fedora and something like stable/testing/unstable pipeline in Debian, which help with catching the most egregious attempts. Crates.io and npm are unserious by their very design, which is focused on maximizing growth by eliminating as many "hindrances" as possible.

Just an anecdote: I'm currently patching nautilus to move ellipsisation of long filenames in the list view mode from center to right aligned, because of course there is no option for it, but technical books tend to have several authors, long names, and with Gnome's default center ellipsisation I can only see the author list and the year of a book.

Another pet peeve of mine is the lack of type ahead. The relatively recent type ahead efforts were blocked (or stalled) by "design considerations" https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Design/whiteboards/-/issues/1... As the result Gnome Files is very unpleasant to use for deep trees with thousands of files in every directory on spinning media (zfs). The standard search feature also destroys context, i.e. being able to see the files filtered out by the query.

This release is also consecutively the third time they moved the list of ongoing file operations -- from top right, to top left, to bottom left. With all the obsession about "not confusing users" that the Gnome's leading figures declare the constant change in the UX should be one of the primary sources of the actual confusion users experience.

>The simplest and most effective solution against a drive-by attack scenario is, in our opinion, to treat GPU access in the browser as a sensitive resource, like microphone or camera access, that requires permission before use. For WebGL and WebGPU, this is not currently the case (Firefox 114, Chrome 115, Chromium 117). This would also prevent malicious parties from stealthily using local computing resources for, e.g., cryptomining.

Personally, I've been wanting this for a decade or longer. But WebGL/WebGPU is another vector for fingerprinting, and removing it from the available by default set of APIs would also lower the level of adoption, so I doubt they'll allow to hide it behind a permission.

The issue with the Rust ecosystem, and other similar "move fast and break things" npm-like ecosystems is not the lack of review per se, but the fact that most modules are microdependencies, or depend on them, each with its own maintainer, and it's very easy to end up with 100-300 dependencies(with a slightly lower number of authors) in the most trivial use cases. In the C++ world libraries tend to be larger, with multiple maintainers, or even unified into a single meta library like boost, which alleviates trust issues to a degree. Some degree of vetting at the level of distros like RedHat further lowers the risks.

The current situation with the language ecosystems is basically "we must build this very lax system with as few friction moments as possible, or else our language would be outcompeted by a language with laxer requirements" and "We must make our ecosystem grow, grow, grow! Externalities down the line be damned!", i.e. it's a capitalism, careerism influenced situation imho. So we have "You must vet all the 300 modules and their updates yourself" as the result. Requiring module authors to unify into meta projects to review each other's commits is perceived as laughable, unneeded self-hindrance. Same goes for separating the ecosystem into vetted(stable)/unvetted(unstable).