ranger_danger

If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

sorry I didn't know that wasn't referring to the .brand gTLD

When I try to search for something I get an endless cloudflare captcha loop.

How can I register my own .google domain then?

https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...

The section 1201 text was from the email OP received, I was just quoting that verbatim.

But 1201 deals with circumventing copyright protections and AFAIK isn't related to DMCA takedowns, but 512(h) is what I've seen typically used for DMCA notices instead, to get the identity of a poster in order to sue them (since the ISP itself is exempt as a conduit), so that's why I mentioned what's required for it.

Because I typically see GTK as an ancient buggy toolkit with bad documentation and an ugly cross-platform experience. I would love to be proven wrong though.

There was an entire talk given about the pain of needing to switch Linus Torvalds' divelog app from GTK to Qt and they seemed to have the same opinions I do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZyVSOnqm0

Perhaps GTK4 is different and looks better cross-platform, I don't know, but I haven't heard of any new/prominent cross-platform apps that actually use it.

And the way I have been observing several top gnome devs' attitudes and abusiveness towards their own users the last handful of years does not sit well with me.

I certainly don't like what the parent commenter said, but I find your response to be even more unprofessional and disrespectful, especially coming from the owner of the company.

Requiring an independent jury decide the appeal sounds like a good idea to me, but good luck getting a law passed that forces it...

Yes, unfortunately compilers for embedded platforms are often hard to come by.

> based on the facts presented to us, we're unable to confirm a violation of 17 U.S. Code § 1201

Sorry GitHub, that's not for you to determine, as you are not a US judge. They should never have replied like this IMO and this behavior opens them up to liability for not properly handling DMCA procedures.

Proper DMCA 512(h) notices (assuming OP's was proper) require the host (github) to remove or disable the content first without even attempting to verify the claims.

Then the repo owner has a chance to challenge the notice. If they choose to do, they're basically required to publicly doxx themselves first, by nature of just going through the motions of the judicial court system.

If there was no challenge after a set period of time, then the content stays down.

If there was a challenge, it stays down until a court decides what happens next.

Surprised to see a new (large) GTK app, especially in Rust.

Can this be compiled for other operating systems than Linux?

> Don't do that

I quite like the idea though... I would love to see a real resurgence in retro computing app development that actually brings it all past the "niche of a niche" stage. Even if it's just "make this fast on a XX MHz CPU" and not even targeting a retro OS... embedded could use a lot of extra talent there too.

After all, restrictions are exactly what sparks creativity in people.

I also think the Linux desktop could definitely do with a lot more restriction, which would also help with the decision paralysis people are often faced with.

This was GCC 11. I did try clang 15 and got an error (whereas 14 did not), but my point was that the language spec itself allows this, regardless of any specific compiler, and the original argument (as I understood it) was about the type safety of C and C++ (the language specs) themselves.

But not everyone has their system set to use the DHCP's DNS, and browsers/some devices override that with some other public DoH provider by default (or as an option)... and not allowing that would break too many people's access IMO.

I feel like a simple IP block/whitelist for the messaging service would be so much easier than all this SNI business. There's nothing stopping them from verifying specific SNI certs against the real ones anyway if you went the xray route.

I just want C with classes, like C++ started out as.

What I'd really like is a standards-conformant (C++98/03) compiler that actually enforces the standard properly (or maybe it becomes a new standard), and ONLY allows that version to be used, AND only the classes.

No templates, no exceptions, no standard library (just use a plain libc).

In C, assigning the return value from malloc() to a specific type merely produces a warning:

  $ echo -ne "#include <stdlib.h>\nint foo() { return malloc(42); }" | gcc -xc -fsyntax-only -c -
  <stdin>: In function ‘foo’:
  <stdin>:2:20: warning: returning ‘void *’ from a function with return type ‘int’ makes integer from pointer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]

Whereas in C++ it's a hard error:

  $ echo -ne "#include <stdlib.h>\nint foo() { return malloc(42); }" | gcc -xc++ -fsyntax-only -c -
  <stdin>: In function ‘int foo()’:
  <stdin>:2:26: error: invalid conversion from ‘void*’ to ‘int’ [-fpermissive]

Does this not count as "more type safe" to you?

I don't see how that would be possible as DNS requests are not technically linked to web requests in any way, other than that they are sometimes made in close temporal proximity to each other, but caching means this isn't always the case.

I could just visit 1.2.3.4 to reach the captive portal, but my question was more about "how can they allow based on SNI if that is encrypted too"?

Regardless of what DNS server is used, my connection requests to websites (whether to a real messaging site, or a faked xray one, or whatever) might be using ECH, so how could they allow the request in that case? I don't think they can control whether those messaging services are using ECH either.

> I wanted specifically to find a minimal set of restrictions to run untrusted code.

I don't think we should consider containers to be a security boundary. Even full VMs can be escaped, and have been, many times.

The fact that this is possible in the first place makes me think we need a much better approach.

What if ESNI/ECH is being used?

There are other countries that routinely block traffic like Iran or Russia, but there are also some simple methods that go right past the GFW many times, like VPN traffic that is tunneled through regular TLS, or even just plain SSH.

The "new hotness" is randomizing your TLS fingerprints and masquerading as legitimate web traffic/domains, as well as tunnel/proxy/VPN setups that utilize multiple endpoints at once to spread out the "suspicion" of all your traffic going through a single host all the time.

Their github account lists over 5,000 commits and 1,500 pull requests... just in the last 4 days.

Was said Claude AI prompted to even attempt to look for anything "innovative" or just make more of the same? The same can be said of humans if one isn't already intentionally trying to do something different.

> But proper original thought is still firmly in the realm of humans

Copying isn't just how design works, it's how everything works. Humans are imitation machines.

We create new things by collecting, regurgitating and mutating stuff we experience, just like LLMs. In a vacuum man has no ideas outside of base impulses.

Hence why originality is a novice belief. The closer you get to any field, the more you realize the stories around who made all the breakthroughs are BS media narratives. Most if not all steps forward in any field have hundreds of people clawing at similar ideas concurrently.

Have you actually used Bonsai 2 though and not just the original Bonsai? The experience is vastly improved but still requires a custom llama.cpp fork to use as of right now.

What about Bonsai 2? You can fit Qwen3.8 27B on an 8GB GPU with it, and upstream llama.cpp support is already being worked on (they just got System1 support too).

This is really cool. Is the source available?

Yes, but that shifts the trust even moreso onto Apple, and now they know every site you visit AND can see all your unencrypted traffic from their servers, and can associate that traffic across multiple devices/accounts/IPs with it.

Collusion between the relay and gateway is exactly the situation they warn breaks the privacy features of OHTTP.

And while some might think "well Apple controls the whole OS, they can always spy on you"... yes, but I'm operating under the assumption that they're not currently doing this, and that collecting data at the relay level may be easier/more desirable/discrete for them.

My understanding is they can get a current location with just a subpoena (not a warrant) already, but looking at a history of past locations to watch their movements constitutes a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant and probable cause.

Originally the Third-party doctrine[1] also would allow searches that were otherwise illegal, but recently exceptions have been made for GPS/location history in the courts in recent years (Carpenter and Chatrie).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

What amazes me is that their software has never been updated to support flight numbers longer than 4 digits.

Does any current proxy/tunnel/VPN software support OHTTP as a transport method?

What about browsers making general website requests to services that support it?