Thanks for the excerpts! I was trying to understand the reasoning, which seem to just be in the 2nd excerpt:
- The rules of signed/unsigned are complicated and there is too much auto-conversion - does that mean languages that make this more explicit means this is fine? It just seems ideal to have stronger typing.
- It is mentioned that you can initialized an unsigned int to "-2" - but that presumably could also be fixed in the language.
I'm trying to separate out which is "don't do this in C/C++" and which is "don't do this in any language".
But where do you get the checksum from? I realize in some cases you are downloading from a mirror (thus as long as you trust the source of the checksum, that is quite useful) - but if it is from the same host - then you are just comparing against the same webserver.
Totally agree with one shotting GUI tools. I especially have liked it to create a single-file web app, and then open it with Chromium locally (no web server needed).
In my case, it built a tool for splitting sounds and a tool for defining hitboxes for a game. Tools made exactly for more workflow. Wild times.
I wonder if for closed-source apps if governments can not just force the key collection the same way they would force decryption with centralized keys.
I still don't understand the note that the companies can't decrypt the messages with e2e encryption. Isn't it as simple as a software update that says:
"If user = foo, then send the on device keys elsewhere"?
Or if those keys are part of a TPM, then a software update that just asks it to send in the decrypted messages?
Can judges not order this now, but can order decryption if the keys are stored centrally?
The debugging improvements have been huge for me too. I was debugging some financial software, and while it took a few shots, just with access to my code and not to the database that showed the issue, it found a fairly complex problem.
The recent is very recent, so not much uptake yet (https://caniuse.com/webtransport) - but hopefully can be used without fallback to WebSockets in a couple years.
The favourite model I've seen is the main branch is free, licensed MIT or whatever, but if you want release artifacts that are tested - then you pay for it. You can always compile your own.
But if you want some redundancy, k8s let's you just say run 4 of this, 6 of this on these 3 machines. At least I find it quite straight forward.
The database is more complex since there is storage affinity (I use cockroachDB with local persistent volumes for it) - but stateful is always complicated.
So both mics will pick up both people (at least somewhat, in the same room) - but because there is no, I assume 20-100ms latency going through the system, to discord, and back - it avoids a slight difference in timing of the two mics picking up the same sound slightly differently. Is that right?
Positive EV for the employees vs. another company that pay less and has less lay-offs (assuming random)? I guess it depends on how much less pay the other company is...