Read my comment further up. Count the references from each site and always download from each site the first time you visit it regardless of whether or not you have it. So the side channel is muted.

I want one that is the phone equivalent to my framework laptop.

Easily repairable.
Options on the battery size/Thickness tradoff.
A choice of interfaces - audio, sd, etc
An open programming environment.

Why would you filter with a Ring Oscillator? How does that even work?

The content is not irrelevant if it's executable and not signed.
The mitigation of side channels is best done with quantization and trace synchronization prevention. But those might be not in the skill set of the average web programmer.

The blasted wasteland approach is to not cache. The googles will whine about the wasted bandwidth, but then they shouldn't have spent decades putting insecure constructs into web technologies.

If the excess bandwidth is the downloading on first visit of a file you previously downloaded, then that's the cost of security.
You could mitigate by first sharing hashes of the code you are linking so the browser can make a choice about downloading or not. A filename is not a secure hash.
If it's say a common jquery library, then there's very little information leaked by not downloading it.
If it's something more specific to singular websites, then go ahead and download it.

>These payload files go back decades,

There's the hole. If it's decades old, the cryptography will be bad and all it will take is some enterprising hardware hackers to work with some farmers to reverse engineer it and recover the signing keys.

If it's a local cache and the two things contain the same data, store it once and reference count it. You have to retrieve the second copy once to know it's the same so unless I'm visualizing the problem wrong, the information leakage is not happening.

Like my new movie "Javascript" about an author stuck on the island of Java and he needs to write a best seller to get the money to leave.

>Is there any benefit to migrating this codebase to a more modern PHP framework, like Laravel?
No
>And is there an easy and minimally intrusive way this can be done en-masse, across dozens of applications and websites?
No
>Or at this point should I just stick with vi?
Hell yes

Frameworks are a pox on coding, forcing many layers of stuff between your code and what it does. HTTP is not complicated. It doesn't need a complicated framework.

There are plenty of people who don't understand VPNs. If you don't understand VPNs, you won't understand why or why not it would make any sense to have a browser extension doing VPN stuff.

Pat kept is religiosity in a bag for his time as ceo. He let it slip a few times before he was ceo, particularly when he was running the labs. Now he's out he can let his freak flag fly.

The result I'm interested in is whether it is possible or not. We don't have an answer either way.

If the noise always grows or the energy to create low entropy matter or something else conspires to prevent it being possible then that it good for stored data.

If QEC can work in a scalable way and BER can be reduced such that the ECC beats the BER, then you have a problem for stored data.

Being crypto minded, my personal opsec led me to keep anything secret that went into a cloud or transited across the internet have a symmetric key that travelled by quantum secure methods. I helped that I travel a lot. DH or RSA is not quantum secure. A key file in your pocket is.

Thank you.

Sadly the paper is behind a $30 paywall.

I read the abstract. The claim seems weak - "beyond break even" I.E. they do better than not having error correction. Well I should coco, but is it enough? 63us decoder time for a 1.1 us cycle. So how does that work? 1.1us then you spend 63us waiting for the error correction before doing the next cycle? They've upped it from a distance 5 to distance 7 code - a distance 7 code can correct 3 bits in (if I read it right) 101 qbits comprising the logical qbit. That's not enough.

Perhaps a real quantum computer academic can tell me where I'm misreading it? I'm just a humble cryptography implementor trying to work out if I should be worried.

"IBM, Google's main rival, questioned the scalability of Google's "surface code" error correction approach"

I believe I questioned the scalability, right here on slashdot, on the discussion around the original surface code paper. The numbers were in the paper showing the error correction could not scale to a lid on BER as the number of qubits and iterations increase.

The text of TFS is underwhelming. "Dropped by half". So you had 10 errors, now you have 5. Your algorithm still doesn't work.

I haven't read the paper yet - I guess I've got to go and do that now just so I can see why it won't work.