Data from the past few days we do have a legitimate interest in; protecting our network. If someone is spamming us we need to be able to find out who did it and the only way to do that is deanonymized logs to begin with. Atleast in my workplace we have worked with the DPA to ensure that we are in compliance and there is no issue in keeping around 7 days of IP logs without further anonymization. All or long term logs are hashed below the bit minimum, and that can't be paired with old request data as easily since we strip all but major version identifiers from User Agents, for example.
Also great for running an SSH Agent, since they aren't coupled to some magic invocation in some bashrc but will always be started when the user session starts and cleanly terminated when you log out (or linger if you set that up)
The box operator is basically how Box::new operates. One of the big problems if you were to DIY it, is to prevent stack allocation of heap data. The naive approach will result in your data first having to be allocated on the stack, passed to Box::new and then moved into the heap.
The box operator allows moving the initialization of a datastructure into the heap entirely (and the compiler also auto-insert the malloc calls).
It is largely a one-trick pony that only exists to help out the standard library, nobody should be using it ever. But it is the one instance where the rust compiler will deploy an allocation on the heap without any obvious way to tell that it did that.
Yeah, that has become largely a non-issue, all the alloc structure allow for fallible allocation now via a separated function call (and the old ones simply use the new one with an unwrap() call to panic on error).
Rust is entirely fine working with custom allocation stuff, there isn't any hidden allocator calls in you can make (well, the box operator, but that has been nightly forever and likely won't appear outside the stdlib ever).
IIRC there was only a concern around allocation but the rust std is moving to fallible allocations for that reason (and the rust integration seems to ship their own std lib anyway)
Otherwise there is no issue in redefining panic() to call the kernel oops handler and have the kernel perform a coredump.
The rustc binary should run on any modern glibc distro by default and there is builds for other libc libraries too. It's not purely statically linked, it does run against glibc and pulls in a few other dynamic libraries, but most of those should be present if your system can show a TTY with a shell. I'd recommend using rustup to install the newest toolchain (and avoid pulling in an old one from your package manager, rustup can install older toolchains for you and manages it better than your distro with high probability)
A lot of HTTP frameworks let you violate the HTTP spec to a surprising degree. Though with Rust you can just double check the return data with a middleware for Axum.
Correct, I spent about half an hour implementing IntoResponse for my own project's error type, but now I can just use normal error handling and I get presented with an error page on any issues. It's quite magic (not really, very streamlined).
You can if the hash collides within the IPv4 address space; ie it's a hash of less than about 16 bits. Enough to let your roughly see if something fishy is going on but you can't reverse engineer to any specific IP, only a set of 64 thousand.
Google "aluminum foundry fire", there is plenty of examples.
It does not burn easily but once aluminum has ignited it can continue to burn under normal atmospheric conditions, especially if it begins to melt and boil.
Aluminium burns too, just harder to get going. Almost all the metals can be coaxed into burning in various ways, all metal fires are an absolute disaster when they happen.
> Scenario: A user who has paid for a subscription then cancels it wishes their data to be deleted.
> Outcome: The information is not deleted as it is required to defend any possible future legal action.
Just to point out how dangerous this advice is; You are required to delete data on the user. You aren't required to delete data you need for legal purposes (your accounting department will need it for the tax office) and data you need to defend the legal claim (so delete everything but the data that essentially says 'User X booked Subscription A for N months'.
There is probably enough people who anthropomorphize Oracle and think that Oracle is somehow about something else than making Larry Ellison a shitton of money.
Oracle doesn't care about HN unless they can use HN as a direct source of money. Users being mad on HN doesn't matter, being mad at Oracle does not cause Oracle to make profit.
If OP wants the issue fixed, the most likely solution is to drop affiliate links in the comments, as a positive revenue flow might get one of Oracle's sales-lawyers to investigate the commotion and see if more monetary sources are available to be cracked open.
With how the average cop/soldier of american origin acts, half of them would have fired the bullet before you finished the sentence "domestic terrorist".
You absolutely could keep adding momenting in just the right way. Though I will add, as spin goes up, so does frame dragging, which makes it actually difficult to hit a black hole as space begins spinning with it.
The event horizon going away is entirely valid, the naked singularity is not. So the limit is rather in that we can't explain what would come out of it, rather that the event horizon can't go away.
Black holes don't have a limit on their rotation rate as far as current physics go, since black holes do not have a traditional surface. If the spin exceeds the speed of light, that simply makes the event horizon go away and leaves you with a naked singularity.
You are aware that the government can just drone strike you, right? Or have a cop gun you down (with qualified immunity, they won't even get any punishment!)
Rotation does indeed allow for heavier neutron stars, the outward force helps counteracting the inward pull of gravity that would otherwise overcome the forces that keep neutrons not turning into black holes.
edit:
There is a relativistic limit, as faster rotation eventually is not possible without adding ludicrous amounts of energy that would make the neutron star too heavy.
The non-rotating limit is about 2.1 solar masses (2.1 to 2.9), the rotating limit is about 20% higher (2.5 - 3.6 solar masses)
If you check the reporting on the incident, they are able to calibrate almost all of this away and use the telescope as normal. It's bad but not that bad. That the telescope would be hit was expected so it can account for this amount of damage.
NASA generally publishes the telescope time allocations to my knowledge, you can atleast find the allocations for the next year already on the internet.
Barely worth to launch another one. It would be more cost effective to invest some R&D into building a telescope with a different target wavelength to get more science than if you had two of the same telescope. The engineers will also absolutely want to fix any issues they found in Webb already.
The "limit payment possibilities" means that, f.e., Apple cannot stop a banking app from using the on-device secure enclave and the NFC functionality from making payments available if Apple also offers a payment service using those functions (or to say it differently; If Google or Apple make a payments app, they must allow everyone to develop their own payment apps for their ecosystems and make all functions available that are necessary to have all functionality of Google or Apple's own apps).
Even a faraday cage would be insufficient if I can get a powermeter into a power outlet on the same circuit. Or if we're talking about a datacenter, I just need a good electrical measurement device (Voltage, Amperage, Frequency, PF) on the cable outside.
I can, in this example, just have the computer use more power to signal a 1 and less power to signal a 0. For a DC I just ramp up the entire DC load. Do that over the span of a week or so to make it less noticable.