trasz4

How is it different from CHERI?

For my particular case it's about something similar in purpose to sandboxing, but with providing the compartment (ie a process subtree) with an alternative kernel to talk to, to minimise the attack surface between that container and the host kernel.

>From what I have heard, all of these issues come back as soon as someone comes off the drug

Same as with drugs for hypertension, depression, hyperglycemia and many, many others. Not every drug is supposed to somehow permanently cure you.

We used to believe it was not possible to stop people from getting their funny movie clips from China.

One works, the other doesn't.

32S didn't use menu scrolling though.

Slavery is not a problem as long as you personally don't own any slaves, right?

Because you only know the Google's side of the narrative.

Yes, NetBSD did accomplish that, but I expect it to become more commonplace.

Prime is a completely different product, because it's aimed at a completely different target group: students, not engineers.

In somewhat related news, HP is releasing reedition of HP-15C this summer.

In military/aerospace you're mostly paying for the paperwork, not anything physical.

This will also make a lot of difference once we can run lightweight, userspace kernels ("rump kernels").

>Words matter especially right now when Ruzzia is propagandizing everything to find allies for their illegal war.

This is actually a good argument, and one of the reasons I've been abstaining from criticising western countries lately. But now the world consensus on Russian invasion has been reached, support for Ukraine is working full speed, so I think I can return to my regularly scheduled programme.

Of course it is. But "Hacker News" isn't controlled by hackers, it merely uses them to as the source of free content.

The thread is flagged, because HN is marketing branch of YCombinator, and publishing information that's inconvenient to their business partners isn't in their best interests.

Of course the admins will claim this isn't the case, but there's no reason to believe them, and lying is commercial companies' standard modus operandi.

It is you, if you're an American citizen. Same way current Russian invasion isn't "Putin's war", every Russian is partially responsible.

He could reveal more info on USA's inhumane practices obviously.

>This is the same logic that China uses to ban all western apps

Except it doesn't. It's just that apps are required to follow local laws, and many companies - like Google - don't want to, because their entire business is exploiting users' privacy.

TikTok app is no different from YouTube app or Twitter app in that regard.

So, the First Amendment doesn't mean shit if banning free speech is required to make YouTube make money again.

"Non-inflammatory" ways of fighting religious fundamentalism and fringe theories don't work.

>Of course I meant that there are plenty of _valid_ secular arguments.

And I've responded there are none. And you've not been able to provide any.

>Regardless, you may find that the right of the mother to bodily autonomy outweighs the right of the fetus to life, but not everyone will weigh the situation the same.

Of course, in particular people who believe woman are not proper humans. And it just so happens that this is the view of Catholic Church.

>Some argue that the temporary albeit serious inconvenience to the mother

I don't think this line requires any comment.

>The funny thing is that each side seems to think this

Again, same as with any other fallacy, like flat earth.

>if you cannot understand the other side's arguments, that is a weakness of your own mental model

If you cannot understand flat earther's arguments, that's a weakness of your own mental model? :)

FWIW, I do understand those arguments. It's just that I also understand they are stupid and evil - because they flow from ideology which is stupid and evil.

>There are plenty of secular arguments against abortion.

There are plenty of secular arguments for flat earth. It's not about the number of arguments, but about their validity. There are no secular arguments that don't depend on logical fallacies or invalid assumptions.

>Abortion balances the life, health, and happiness of the mother against the life of the unborn fetus.

And similarly when talking about forcing someone to donate their blood, or part of liver for transplant we'd need to balance the rights of the forced donor and the rights of the prospective transplant receiver, right?

>IMO this is one of the most ethically challenging questions that we're still arguing about as a society.

It's not only not one of the challenging ones, it's not a serious question at all. Modern ethics is pretty clear on reproductive rights.

Sure, but there's a fundamental difference between christianity in culture and promoting female genital mutilation or denying reproductive rights.

>Also, “life begins at conception,” or at another very early stage, isn’t a Christian innovation. That’s the belief in Shia Islam.

This is a lie ("In Shia Islam, abortion is "forbidden after implantation of the fertilised ovum.", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion). I guess it never occurred to you why even the Sharia countries are not as extreme on abortion as Christian ones.

>Certain Sunni schools also prohibit abortion at any stage.

Obvious lie, ibid.

>Buddhist

Nope, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortion

>Same thing in Hinduism

Okay, so this one is not entirely wrong, just mostly wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion).

Once again: "life from conception" is a fringe view specific to Catholicism and borrowed by other extremist branches.

>I'd be very surprised if there were zero atheists that were anti-abortion.

Well, sure, there were _some_, eg both Hitler and Stalin have delegalised abortion in their countries. But I'm not sure if that's the kind of moral oracle that todays christian fundamentalists would like to remember.

You have an inalienable right to express any view on flat earth in the US. But it doesn't matter if the state law is enforcing religious rules, like in the case of abortion ban.

You do realize that using VPN makes the company you're paying for that VPN gather way more of your internet browsing history than the UK's surveillance program?

Can you elaborate on the difference? How is maintaining views that go against the accepted scientific consensus different between those two cases?