Preferences

inejge
Joined 479 karma

  1. > Why don't they use qmail as an example?

    Perhaps because qmail is an anomaly, not Android? To remain relatively bug-free, a sizeable C project seems to require a small team and iron discipline. Unix MTAs are actually pretty good examples. With qmail, for a long time, it was just DJB. Postfix has also fared well, and (AFAIK) has a very small team. Both have been architected to religiously check error conditions and avoid the standard library for structure manipulation.

    Android is probably more representative of large C (or C++) projects one may encounter in the wild.

  2. > If they block/ban/close/suspend a customer account they must provide habeas corpus.

    * evidence

    "Habeas corpus" is not a lofty expression for evidence, although people sometimes use it as such. It's a procedure for challenging one's detention before a court.

  3. > Hard forks have traditionally led to massive flame wars.

    Provided that the project is popular and has a community, especially a contributor community (the two don't have to go together.) Most projects aren't that prominent.

  4. There are ways in which shielding in space can do harm: really energetic particles get trapped and produce a shower of daughter particles and rays over a greater area. So you'd need even more shielding. Or you accept that such things will happen and use rad-hard parts, redundancy etc. When you have the whole atmosphere above, it's much less of a concern.

    Besides, that's even more mass to be lofted. Pushing the economics further into the ludicrous end.

  5. > Capital "i"s without crossbars aren't capital "i"s. They're lower-case Ls. Any font that doesn't recognize this should be rejected.

    You have asserted this at least thrice in the past thirty minutes. What makes you feel so strongly about it? "Rejected" for what purpose? Do you understand that you've just trashed Helvetica, to take a famous example?

  6. > The 80287 (AKA 287) and 80387 (AKA 387) floating point microprocessors started to pick up some competition from Weitek 1167 and 4167 chips and Inmos Transputer chips, so Intel integrated the FPU into the CPU with the 80486 processor (I question whether this was a monopoly move on Intel's part).

    I don't think it was, transistor density became sufficient to integrate such a hefty chunk of circuitry on-die. Remember that earlier CPUs had even things like MMUs as separate chips, like Motorola 68851.

  7. There's illiteracy, and there's functional illiteracy. They're not the same, and people often confuse the two. A literally illiterate person (ha!) wouldn't make headway with almost any realistic computer interface, icons or not.

    The 20% statistic is about people who have great trouble reading and comprehending simple sentences, not discerning individual words. It's tragic and debilitating, but such people could muddle through a simple interface with textual labels. A truly illiterate person couldn't.

  8. It's not remotely the same type of error -- error non-handling is very visible in the Rust code, while the Lua code shows the happy path, with no indication that it could explode at runtime.

    Perhaps it's the similar way of not testing the possible error path, which is an organizational problem.

  9. > I think it was Snowden who made TLS the default.

    Snowden's revelations were a convincing argument, but I would place more weight on Google in its "we are become Evil" phase (realistically, ever since they attained escape velocity to megacorphood and search monopoly status), who strove to amass all that juicy user data and not let the ISPs or whoever else have a peek, retaining exclusivity. A competition-thwarting move with nice side benefits, that is. That's not to say that ISPs would've known to use that data effectively, but somebody might, and why not eliminate a potential threat systemically if possible?

  10. It will help that side of the process (although, as a sibling has noted, you can CNAME your way into a better-controlled update service), but the challenge of automating cert changes for various non-HTTP services, including various virtual or physical boxes with funky admin interfaces, remains. I don't expect that vendors will do much about that, and it will end up on admins' plates, as usual. There will be much grumbling, but fewer solutions.
  11. "Code frequency" for jxl-rs shows no activity from Aug 2021 to Aug 2024, then steady work with a couple of spurts. That's both a longer hiatus and a longer period of subsequent activity (a year+ ago isn't "recently" in my book.) What data have you based your observation on?
  12. > On the SEU issue I’ll add in that even in LEO you can still get SEUs

    As a sibling post noted, SEUs are possible all the way down to sea level. The recent Airbus mass intervention was essentially a fix for a badly handled SEU in a corner case.

  13. Okay now I'm imagining a classical ballet recreation of the "Heeere's Johnny" scene. With firemen.
  14. > What has always baffled me is how CS uses the word "safety" where all other industries use "robustness".

    FWIW "safety factors" are an important part of all kinds of engineering. The term is overloaded and more elusive in CS because of the protean qualities of algorithmic constructs, but that's another discussion.

  15. > I wonder how long the open-source ecosystem will be able to resist this wave.

    This PR was very successfully resisted: closed and locked without much reviewing. And with a lot of tolerance and patience from the developers, much more than I believe to be fruitful: the "author" is remarkably resistant to argument. So, I think that others can resist in the same way.

  16. > how hard is it to add a few methods that split a string or pad it?

    In full generality, pretty hard. If you're just dealing with ASCII or Latin-1, no problem. Then add basic Unicode. Then combining characters. Then emojis. It won't be trivial anymore.

  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

    Came online ~10 years ago. One could quibble about design and construction timelines; the reactor is still half-experimental, and the Russians are conducting that breeder program very slowly. But it's not a 1980s design frozen in time.

  18. > The "more to the secret sauce" is the structure of the company. Valve is flat.

    I'm too lazy to dig up references, but there have been semi-exposés over the years by ex-employees stating that Valve's flatness was anything but. Namely, in the absence of formal hierarchy an informal one will inevitably arise, and can be equally constraining and pathological, without the benefit of having known avenues for redress. To be sure, formal procedures can also be window-dressing: it's a balancing act, and not an easy one. I'm just skeptical of ascribing too much benefit to lack of structure.

  19. > [...] the engine went to the left. Not left and up.

    Whatever you're describing, it's not this accident. Over and out.

  20. > There are lots of candidates for a failing engine yeeting itself in any direction.

    For the precise trajectory, certainly; for the general direction, not so much. Could you describe a combination of forces that would have thrown that engine to the left of the direction of travel? (We're talking about this accident, not any engine anywhere.)

This user hasn’t submitted anything.