A neat trick I was told is to always have ballast files on your systems. Just a few GiB of zeros that you can delete in cases like this. This won't fix the problem, but will buy you time and free space for stuff like lock files so you can get a working system.
Good showcase. Your code will match the first parameter that has <param> as a suffix, no necessarily <param> exactly (username=blag&name=blub will return blag). It also doesn't handle any percent encoding.
I'm German and had a startup in Germany (standard UG holding + GmbH).
My one advice to anyone thinking of starting a company is: don't do it in Germany. Tax burden, insane bureaucracy and a conservative, tech adverse local market put you at a disadvantage against UK/US peers.
>German founders are incentivized to move abroad before exits
Don't do that. The tax office will treat that as a sale and will tax the current valuation at 20%.
As a long time vim users, elisp is something I always envied the emacs guys for. I love vim and bram but viml is a pos. The result were a multitude of language bindings. Of course, now everyone uses their favorite language to write extension which meant that most non trivial vim configs require a working python, perl, ruby and ocaml interpreter on the system. Lua in nvim fixes that, now I only need to install a billion language servers before I can start working :D
I quoted this, in full, in my MSc thesis. It's both a light hearted introduction to the Halting Problem and something you need to reference quite often when writing about static program analysis. Good times.
How do I get continuous deployments without k8s? I value being able to deploy new code quickly, easily and fearless, especially in high speed low drag environments like startups. I don't see how I can do GitOps like workflows with any other tools that have the same large mindshare and breath of commercial, managed offerings.
I not sure whether that satire. In case its not, most languages that allow inline assembly (like C) have an optional "clobber list" argument that tells the dataflow analysis of the compiler that your assembly snippet overwrites certain registers [1]. Inline assembly doesn't have target specific clobber lists because it's assumed that the code only works on one target and the programmer has to take care of making it work.
Baker and friends pulling out the money and Mozilla employees turning the NGO into just another bargaining chip in the US culture war seems more like a symptom of the rot that set in years earlier. Since the late 2010s there seems to be a distinctive lack of vision at Mozilla.
Building a browser engine from scratch is akin to building an operating system. Maybe the new Firefox will be 95% effective vs. an only 92% effective Chrome but I don't see how this effort advances the state of the web in terms of freedom and user choice meaningfully. Like others here I switched to Brave a few years ago. I think their strategy of building interesting things on top of Chrome is smarter. Imagine if Brave where the prevalent browser and I could send anybody an .onion or ipfs:// link at it would Just Work (TM). Same with their BAT token. Instead of restlessly shitting on the idea, let's imagine it does work and we have an alternative to ads for monetising content. I find this way more exciting than parallel rendering and Rust.
For a Phoenix and later Firebird user like me it's sad to see what happened to Mozilla, but the only constant is change.