Quite, that was back in the day when YouTube could have had viable competition from the likes of Vimeo. Offer a service at a loss where nobody else can compete, then when you achieve market dominance, then crank the money generation machine into operation.
For that reason I will not give Google anything.
Please explain how you're going to rewrite memory handling, symbol and dynamic loader code in Rust without surrounding it with unsafe() anyway, in which case it not only destroys the memory-safe guarantees of the enclosed code, but also destroys the Rust guarantees of anything - including "safe" code - near it in memory.
Sure, you can go some way to mitigate certain things, but Rust cannot assume handle low-level memory etc. without unsafe statements (because that's basically literally what unsafe exists for), so you'll end up with essentially the same code but wrapped in Rust, rather than decades-old tested C.
Just because something is imperfect doesn't mean that it isn't better to switch. If you have a 15 million lines of code in your codebase, how much needs to be unsafe? If it's in C, a memory unsafe operation could be lurking in any of those 15M lines. If written in Rust, then the number of lines needed to be handled with kid gloves is greatly reduced, and you can concentrate your audits on the functions you know to be unsafe, because you've explicitly marked them as such because the thing wouldn't compile otherwise.
Kerberos security was bypassed by feeding it sleeping pills
How would you know? Do you ask them?
I know I may be in the minority, but I like NAT over having my (an) IP address directly exposed/available on the Internet.
Plenty of correct responses saying how wrong this statement is, but I would add that if you're suitably insane, NAT66 is a thing.
Without reading the CVEs and corresponding code it is not clear if these are exploitable at all.
May want to watch the video here. The exploits are incredibly exploitable.
I'm hearing that people with low platelet counts are more vulnerable to this clotting issue.
Isn't that an effect of the reaction rather than the cause of the clot? Do they know that those affected had low platelet counts before their vaccinations?
provoking a foul argument that plays well with the demographics the Tories are especially interested in cultivating
This is the heart of what I'm trying to say and what I want to stop! When detractors immediately reach for the "you're a Nazi" toolbox, do they genuinely think they'll convince Tory voters to switch to alternatives? In my opinion, it'll only convince more people that it's a witch-hunt and it'll be another shoe-in for the Tories at the next election.
I think we're on the same side here.
Criticizing both the report and its authors at the same time is fine by me. I was too quick to dismiss yout last sentence, so apologies.
I have never made any judgement call on the report either way here, and my main point stands: I linked to someone who questioned the credentials of one of the authors, and then made references to Nazis when she found out she was wrong. This was not some nobody on Twitter, this was an academic at a prestigious university.
It is beyond parody that you use the terms "unlikely to have read" and "axe to grind" in relation to the Sewell report, given that this report was written by people who have consistently misquoted and misappropriated other people's work in support of a tendentious set of pre-determined conclusions. See, for example, what Marmot has to say.
You are criticising the authors of the report rather than the report, which is exactly my point.
Stop with these sarky snide remarks already. He hasn't done that as far as I can tell, and it's unlikely he'll ever do that, and all you're doing is inuring people to the stuff the government actually does that we should care about.
With people saying gloves should be counted in pairs (they never are for surgical gloves), claiming Test and Trace cost £37 billion (it is a fraction), and prominent academics outright ad-hominem attacking people writing a government report they're unlikely to have read, I'm starting to feel that perhaps some people have an axe to grind.
Gah, missed off the last quote:
sqlstring = "select ssn where user_id = #{id}"
Status.find_by_sql(sqlstring)
We need to deprecate non-parameterized APIs and remove them from the libraries.
This will only break code that is already broken.
Genuine question here: how would you do that? How would the library know the difference between a query that's a static one with no parameters, and one where the string has been constructed from interpolation.
Status.find_by_sql("select now()")
vs
Status.find_by_sql("select ssn where user_id = #{@id}")
or even
You could be in the market for more than one reason, gaming being one of them.
VMs aren't perfect for everbody or everything. Gaming for one takes a hit.
APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir
