qw3rty01

Everything you mentioned goes back to my point that it's an anonymity service, not a privacy service. Tor exit nodes don't know who sent traffic, but they do see all the traffic that passes through them.

HTTPS can mitigate some of that, just like it can for VPNs, but the site you're going to is still very much visible.

Don't get me wrong, Tor is a very useful service if anonymity is your goal, but it requires a solid understanding of what can go wrong, which torproject provides a decent list for: https://support.torproject.org/faq/staying-anonymous/

> If you think you want a VPN for "privacy", use Tor Browser

so replace a vpn, which might be logging your traffic, for a service which absolutely is logging your traffic?

Tor is an anonymity service, not a privacy service.

This is the project that the dnSpy author moved to!

I think it's more likely that you eat less during 2 to 3-day tournaments.

It does clone: https://stdrs.dev/nightly/x86_64-pc-windows-gnu/src/alloc/ve...

it might be optimized to a memset, but it's the clone codepath, as opposed to the u8 specialization codepath as discussed in the article

But the original commenter is talking about how the benchmark isn't useful because it doesn't touch memory, but you get similar results even if you do touch memory.

This definitely brings it closer, but on my machine, touching the entire array still ends up being 2 seconds slower (5.4s for the calloc side, 7.8s for the clone side)

You probably won't notice a difference unless you have allergies, or there's some other issue causing abnormally high amounts of VOCs to be in the air (such as mold or dust)

They also made a colonel sanders dating sim: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1121910/I_Love_You_Colone...

Directly after the quote you mentioned:

- 33 are under investigation

- 61 unrelated to the vaccine

- 52 had insufficient information to determine if the vaccine was linked to the death

and finally the piece of information we're interested in:

- 6 due to TTS (a known side-effect), all from people who received the COVISHIELD/AstraZeneca vaccine

It probably has more to do with things like this: (analysis of Camp Fire) https://twitter.com/TubeTimeUS/status/1306359385656946688

In Rust, the only way to trigger undefined behavior is the presence of unsafe code. So everything outside of manipulating COUNTER in your code block cannot trigger undefined behavior. In C, there aren't any of those guarantees, so any line in the code could potentially trigger undefined behavior. Since we know that only the block manipulating COUNTER can cause undefined behavior to occur, ensuring that the block manipulating COUNTER can not cause undefined behavior to occur is the only place where heavy scrutiny is needed...as opposed to C, where every function call and line of code would need to be scrutinized.

Sure you could throw unsafe everywhere and not check anything, but that misses a major reason to use rust--safe abstractions over unsafe behavior. Once a safe abstraction exists for unsafe behavior, all the heavy lifting of guaranteeing code will not result in undefined behavior is offloaded to the compiler, instead of the programmer having to keep track of it all.

it wouldn't, it would make a difference for the people who aren't burnt out

After a little bit of research, it looks like this is how you would get the expected outputs: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

this isn't quite set up the way the article was mentioning. Here's with it set up correctly:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

It looks like it still misses some of the cases (specifically with decomposed vs precomposed).

As a side note, it looks like the playground editor also doesn't correctly render some of the lengths (the cursor is 1 character off on the decomposed case)

top500 is a super computer dataset, it's not really relevant to general server market share

you could even look at Red Hat, one of microsoft's competitors, who showed microsoft's market share at 49.6% in 2017: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-continues-lead-linux-...

You'd be losing that bet. Larger datacenters tend to use windows because of microsoft providing support contracts.

I don't have access to the full numbers, but I'd bet on the linux side being majority red hat for the same reason.

This may be true for small companies, but larger businesses tend to use windows due to support contracts.

it says it right in the description, which you don't need a subscription to read

> In 2019, the Windows operating system was used on 72.1 percent of servers worldwide, whilst the Linux operating system accounted for 13.6 percent of servers. Compared to 2018, both companies experienced an increase to their overall market share.

Are you sure? Statista has windows at a 71% server market share in 2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/915085/global-server-sha...

Edit: Because people seem to think that the numbers are made up, here's some more sources with not quite as high, but similarly dominant numbers:

Red Hat: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-continues-lead-linux-... - microsoft @ 49% in 2017

t4: https://www.t4.ai/industry/server-operating-system-market-sh... - microsoft @ 47% in 2018

The case in the article is for when `T: Default`.

The reason this limitation exists is because it was decided that an array length of 0 should impl `Default` even if `T: !Default`, so `impl<T: Default, N: usize> Default for [T; N]` can't be used.

This may be possible in the future if specialization is stabilized, but for now we're stuck with that limit for `Default`.

"Even I" is pretty common for native speakers, although it's normally used to break an assumption rather than being a full replacement for "I also".

For example: you are in a class and someone asked a question about a topic. The person next to you turns and says "I can't believe they don't understand this topic." Your neighbor is making the assumption that you also understand it. So if you didn't understand the topic, a response could be "Nah, even I had some questions about it."

Although someone could definitely use it to be condescending, or just trying to be cheeky.

stupid != easily beatable

the AI will still avoid losing, but it also won't be able to find the endgame strategy to win

Do the people you live with also work from home and never go out?

30 and 15 years was when Linus started writing each

That's gray-hat, a white-hat wouldn't have touched the system without permission from the owners in the first place.

Was the period removed? I remember a few months ago, there would be a `.` after the post age if it was the user's most recent post. Looks like it's not there anymore though.

There definitely is value in it if users created proper passwords, but path of least resistance tends to win out in the end, and people will just find ways around the mechanisms to prevent weaker derived passwords.

The article kinda misses the reason why mandatory password changes existed in the first place -- unknown breaches. The idea was that if there was an undetected breach, the attacker would have a maximum of the mandatory password change to use credentials. You would still have mandatory password changes upon discovering a breach, which would reset the counter. And the article wasn't very clear as to why this is no longer recommended, but when mandatory password changes are enforced, users tend to make new passwords which are trivial to crack if you have a known old password. So if there's an unknown (or even known) breach, users will tend to make a new password which an attacker can easily guess given the older known passwords, losing any benefit gained from mandatory password changes. And this is worse than not having mandatory password changes, because rare password changes (when a breach is discovered) don't put people into the habit of just iterating off of an old password.

Most of these already exist

Rings are code privilege levels, they don't "protect" memory, page tables do that, and the implementation to protect the stack has been around for over a decade - DEP

call/return stack detection is very new, afaik only current generation intel processors have it under the name CET (control-flow enforcement technology). This works by a processor-level "shadow stack," which is pushed to on calls and popped from on returns, and throws a fault if the actual stack is returning to a different location

Pointer encryption is available on ARM as PAC (pointer authentication). Afaik there's no equivalent on x86 processors.

Hardware mitigations are gaining more and more traction, so hopefully all of them will be available across all major architectures within the next decade or so.

EDIT: another huge mitigation that's starting to gain traction is process-level virtualization. Qubes is most known for it, but Windows has been building more support for it (currently only edge and office support it, under the name "Application Guard"). The idea is that if a malicious actor is able to exploit a program, they would also have to break out of the vm the app is in to gain access to the full system, which can be a much more difficult task.

The title of the post says a "vi-like terminal editor," and distinguishing vi vs vim is missing the point--I'm not talking about extensive plugin support or features that are specific to vim, the base keymappings are pretty different.