Bognar

They're charging you for orchestration, log storage, artifact storage, continued development of the runner binary itself and features available to self-hosted machines. What would your own machine do without the runner and service it connects to?

Agree. We're using C# in the backend for an MMO, and while I would still like _more_ control over the memory management, there's a ton of options for dropping down to a low level and avoiding the GC.

Stuff like ReadOnlySpan and IMemoryOwner are awesome to have as built-in language concepts.

On top of that, most infra tooling—Grafana, Prometheus, Kubernetes, Terraform—is written in Go, so choosing Go for the backend comes with a ton of advantages over C#.

Not once have I ever had to interact with these technologies in a way that would benefit from my application using the same language. The language they are written in is irrelevant.

It's HTTPS. Not only are you getting checksumming from TCP, but any block that had bitflips would fail TLS decryption and would fail the entire transfer. You're not going to see silent corruption in transit.

Unless there were some sort of government-provided zero fee digital system for money transfer. Oh well, surely such a thing will never exist.

TCP implementations are an abstraction that work 99.99% of the time, but are still vulnerable to two generals when you look close. TCP is implemented in the kernel with a buffer, the kernel responds with ACKs before an application reads the data.

There is no guarantee that the application reads from that buffer (e.g. the process could crash), so the client on the other end believes that the application has received the message even though it hasn't.

The kernel is handling at-least-once delivery with the network boundary and turning it into at-most-once with the process boundary.

You are in control. You can disable secure boot, you can install your own keys, you don't have to boot windows, you don't have to play games that demand invasive anti-cheat. Vote with your wallet.

Relying on the community to police cheaters is not an effective strategy for online skill-based matchmaking games. There's a reason game companies spend money and effort on anti-cheat and it's not because they're ignoring cheaper alternatives.

Any number between 36 and 64 should be as good!

Wow how did I not think of that, surely the pattern of services getting worse to extract more money from users is due to someone saying a dirty word on the internet.

I would highly recommend getting a drone simulator off Steam. You can practice the controls and drill them into your fingertips during times when you can't fly the real thing (battery recharging, night time, weather, ...). Most advanced radios allow you to hook them up to the computer so you can fly with the exact same inputs, but a console controller is also acceptable.

It's almost like you didn't read the article. Anyone can increment the variable, and both MS and the Linux communities agreed on the solution.

How dare Microsoft operate within the bounds of an agreed-upon industry standard, what a monopoly!

I've always wondered where the love for Go comes from because this is exactly my take.

Inspecting intermediate representations is trivial by just collecting them into a variable?

More complicated scenarios are exactly what streaming APIs excel at, by treating each step as a single transformation of data. Lack of a proper group by function is one of my classic examples for how Go forces you into an imperative style that's harder to understand at a glance.

C# has an official language server and an unofficial one (that unfortunately seems less maintained now). It works just fine with neovim.

Funny enough, it's the efforts of Omnisharp and the VSCode team that has so significantly improved the experience of using various other languages in open source editors due to the creation of LSP.

VMs as an isolation concept at the processor level are actually quite efficient, but unfortunately we use that to run whole operating systems which impose their own inefficiency. Micro-VMs that just run a process without an OS (or with an OS shim) are possible but we don't yet have good frameworks for building and using them.

It's a high effort way of calling the GP an NPC, so just an insult.

They didn't "give the keys", they have a signing infrastructure that is meant to be used for validating organizational identity and origins of code. They have a quality checking system, but it's only required for certain levels of Microsoft backing. I think it used to be called the Windows Logo Program or something?

I can assure you the Windows advertisement platform goes through QA. You might need to think more about separating "what they do" from "how they do it".

They could say "third party kernel modules are installed at your own risk" and provide the usual level of business hours support. CrowdStrike fucked up and Microsoft is helping its customers recover from CrowdStrike's fuckup.

If some third party software you chose to install on your system added a kernel module and started causing kernel panics, would you blame the kernel maintainers?

I'm sure if MS decides to remove the ability for third parties to write code that runs in kernel mode in the name of security/reliability/whatever, this site would immediately turn on a dime and say that Microsoft is evil for removing user control over their machines.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Even mediocre FPS players use positional sound as a huge cue for how to react, which means the client is going to know the positions of every player and non-player entity in a medium range. That's a _huge_ advantage to any hacked client.

Even if the FPS had no sound, an aimbot-free hacked client that knows the positions of only the players that you can see would still provide a significant benefit because a high fidelity radar and pointers can be placed on the screen. No one can sneak up on you. And no you can't base it on which way the player is looking because you can turn around faster than network latency.

Can you limit the impact of hacked clients? Sure, people might not be able to do egregious stuff like X-ray your position from across the map. Locally, though, game clients need a large amount of information to provide a good experience.

Why is that interesting?

The production is physically limited, if you have the money and power to be green, the others are not and you can seriously slow down the transition.

This doesn't make sense. If big players are eating up all the renewable sources, then the renewable sources are making money hand over fist and are encouraged to expand. The market forces should speed up overall production of renewables, not slow it down.

Oh so that's why Copilot has a filter to prevent suggesting copyrighted code, because the intent is to duplicate copyrighted code. It all makes sense now.

It's The Register, they are always like this. Especially when Microsoft is involved.

They absolutely are not. Hundreds of thousands of Ruby tests end up being pretty slow to execute. The CI machines have all dependencies pre-cached and different tests are parallelized across multiple VMs, yet still a full suite takes ~12 minutes.

That image looks like unscientific nonsense. Craving sugar means I need carbon? Carbon is the building block of every organic chemical, and elemental carbon has very little use in the body. It's near meaningless to say you need carbon.

The answer is fortunately simpler, craving sugar probably means your blood sugar is low, or that it crashed after a spike. Counterintuitively, people can avoid this by eating things with less sugar overall or with complex sugars. Requiring the body to break complex sugars down into simple sugars takes time, which keeps your blood sugar from spiking too high.

No one is concerned with Apple charging for its electronics.

Not exactly. The promise of SGX and secure hardware enclaves is that the code that executes there should run with access to protected encrypted memory pages (enforced by the CPU VMM), and the state of the enclave can be remotely attested. Basically, it's designed to run a secure application in an untrusted computing environment as long as you trust the hardware to implement the features correctly.

That last part being the rub.

Per Microsoft's write-up:

Storm-0558 acquired an inactive MSA consumer signing key and used it to forge authentication tokens for Azure AD enterprise and MSA consumer to access OWA and Outlook.com. All MSA keys active prior to the incident – including the actor-acquired MSA signing key – have been invalidated. Azure AD keys were not impacted. The method by which the actor acquired the key is a matter of ongoing investigation. Though the key was intended only for MSA accounts, a validation issue allowed this key to be trusted for signing Azure AD tokens. This issue has been corrected.

So the attackers found a valid private key for MSA (undetermined how, the theory was that it was scraped from a debug dump that was moved from high privilege prod to someone's low privilege shared drive). They then used that key to sign invalid tokens for AAD and the validating side incorrectly accepted those tokens. In this case, the validating side would be Exchange / OWA. Azure AD seems to not be implicated in the security issues, since it was MSA that leaked the key and OWA that failed to properly validate it.

That's my interpretation of the text anyway. It also aligns with my own understanding from a brief time at MS that Azure is much better at security than the rest of MS and that Exchange is a dumpster fire because of decades of cruft and evolution of systems.