da_chicken

That's kinda like asking why someone might complain about Chrome's memory usage in a thread about a new version of V8.

End users don't care about if it's an app or not.

What they care about:

- Does it do what I need it to

- Can I access it easily

- Is it easy to navigate

- Does it work or is it buggy

- Is it slow

- Does it abuse notifications

- Is it prompting me to log in all the time

- Are there too many ads

- Can I use it on any device I have

- Does it complain about updating constantly

I don't think any of those actually has to do with being a website. The problem is that web browsers and websites didn't get a not-stupid UI for phones faster than the phone vendors could funnel everyone into their walled garden. Remember "click here for mobile" and having to develop two web interfaces? And half the time functions would be missing on one side?

Yeah, I absolutely understand the allure of agentic AI, but I am absolutely not going to give shell access or data access to any agent. Certainly not with my permissions level. Until we can get something set up that gives strict schema-only access I'm going to copy and paste definitions for context. Yes that sucks, but it's my responsibility to protect the system just as much as it is to develop scripts and queries for it.

I could believe that if you were near the coast.

I grew up in central Michigan and thought the same about the sun until I spent a few years in southern Arizona. The sun there feels like a heat lamp in summer. The low humidity makes the atmosphere absorb less energy. Although it feels like it's about 5 C cooler than it actually is because sweat evaporates so quickly, but once it gets to 43 C you actually just feel vaguely ill just going outside. Standing in the sun is just not something you do. It's a very unique experience to lick your lips and have your tongue feel cold.

Of course, neither of those were as bad as Houston in August. It was 38 C and 98 % relative humidity. And, I will point out, it had not rained. That's just what it's like. You walk outside and your glasses instantly fog up and you feel like you desperately need to shower.

Well, there probably wasn't a concession stand.

My best friend bought a house. She noticed within the first month that the name of the road she lived on was misspelled in Google Maps. Specifically, it's a slightly unusual spelling of the road name. Like "Chickorie" vs "Chickory". It's particularly annoying because there's a road the next town over with the traditional spelling. It doesn't even share address numbers, but Google Maps still frequently misdirects people.

It's correct everywhere else. The road sign, the municipal tax parcel GIS, the post office, Apple Maps, MapQuest, OpenStreetMaps. All of them had the correct name, except Google Maps. So she reported it through Google Maps. And reported it. And reported it. Every few months she reports it again. She's asked friends to report it as well.

It's still wrong.

She bought her house in 2015.

While this is sort of laughable out of context (I mean, Steam on Linux for the last few years has run basically everything with full acceleration)...

Eh. It's sort of like saying FreeDOS is laughable because DOSBox exists. I think that's missing the point.

I did so in the other reply thread of the comment you replied to.

[Z]ero-day specifically compares when the white hats (vendors, system owners) and the black hats learn about the existence of a vulnerability. If white hats learn that a vulnerability exists by being subject to an in-the-wild black hat exploit of it, then it's a true zero-day.

And, again, you need to be aware that the vulnerability is the flaw or defect in the software or system (e.g., buffer overrun), and the exploit is the specific methodology that takes advantage of it (e.g., worm, malicious web request from a botnet, etc.).

Some people differentiate between a zero day vulnerability and a zero day exploit. I don't really find that is common anymore, and essentially everyone using it means zero-day exploit.

It's difficult to do that because we don't even really know how many cancers there are.

Cancer is best understood as a family of tens of thousands of diseases. They're a whole range of different genetic changes that can happen which result in similar categories of symptoms and consequences. They can also be incredibly complex, such as being the result of hundreds of stacking genetic defects acquired over a lifetime. There can be a thousand varieties of one specific type of lung cancer, and they might all react differently. Some of our solutions might work on a lot of them, but others might only work on a handful. And we're at the beginning of figuring all this out.

CRISPR may eventually allow us to genetically profile a cancer and design highly targeted medications to cure them, but we don't know yet how well it will work. It may only work on a portion of them. It may have worse outcomes than chemotherapy or radiation. It's nice to think that we're going to find a magic solution to the entire problem, but things almost never work that way. I think we're going to be able to resolve a wide range of issues, but I don't think it will really cure cancer as a whole.

No, that's the difference between exploit (knife) and either the incident or impact (wound). The vulnerability would be a gap in armor.

The vulnerability is the exposed weakness. Vulnerabilities get fixes, and they exist without anybody knowing about them. Vulnerabilities get CVEs assigned to them.

The exploit is the means of attack. It's the specific actions or calls that let you take advantage of a vulnerability. It could be a worm, or botnet scripts, or specifically crafted data[0]. A proof of concept is not an exploit itself, but it demonstrates that the vulnerability can be exploited.

An example of a vulnerability might be a gate where the gap between the door and the jam are too wide. The exploit is a coat hanger used to lift the inside latch from outside the gate. That results in unprivileged access.

And zero-day specifically compares when the white hats (vendors, system owners) and the black hats learn about the existence of a vulnerability. If white hats learn that a vulnerability exists by being subject to an in-the-wild black hat exploit of it, then it's a true zero-day.

[0] https://xkcd.com/327/

No, I think it was since Code Red.

I understand why it's poorly understood. It's a snappy term, and people assume it means "bad" and nothing else because that's all you can get from the context. However, since most people also don't know the difference between a vulnerability and an exploit, they won't understand the definition of a zero-day when they read it.

But I'm still going to complain if a security vulnerability research company is using the term incorrectly in their own press copy. It makes them look amateurish.

That's not what "zero-day" means.

That seems like it would be incredibly fragile. As soon as the receiving party made a change that required re-saving the PDF -- like commenting, highlighting, changing default layouts, saving as a PDF/a, checking PDF/ua, etc. -- it might erase the attached files.

It's also very easy to use pdftk to embed or attach files in a PDF using the methods defined in the PDF standard. No renaming or special knowledge required of the audience.

Kelly's 14 points are still a great read and should resonate with a lot of people here.

That said, when they tried this in the past they did it by changing the sticker price to $65k+. So, color me skeptical.

The planner breaking on updates is common for almost all RDBMSs. They introduce optimizations that work great for 95% of customers, and some will just have queries that now act like cardinality is way off or covering indexes are missing.

Not just television. Also the supermarket checkout aisle magazines. Not just tabloids, although that, too. Also the "glossy" magazines. Vogue, People, Us, Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair, McCall's, Seventeen, etc.

The commercialization of the engines of culture continues.

The last I knew, EDS and HSD are mutually exclusive. HSD is typically diagnosed because you have hypermobile joints, fatigue, brain fog, POTS, and other symptoms, but you lack the very specific genetic markers that hypermobile EDS requires.

The real problem is twofold. One is that EDS had historically been a diagnosis of exclusion, and a lot of the diagnostic tests were difficult. The second is that the disorders overwhelmingly affect women, and women tend to get ignored about chronic pain and fatigue.

I would say it exposes how imperative programming was forced to adopt declarative/functional paradigms in order to write things concisely, to the extent that nobody thinks those elements are declarative/functional anymore.

Anything that causes a persistent change of the state of a system is imperative, regardless of how detailed the command is.

No. That's more to do with imperative vs functional programming, which is a subset of declarative, but even then you can't simply say "I changed state so it's imperative." That's a drastic oversimplification. That's like saying Haskell can't write to a file, which is plainly false. Declarative (functional) can absolutely change the state of the system. It just doesn't let you do it except by calling fixed commands, which is exactly what `INSERT` is.

When we're talking about imperative vs declarative, state can still be manipulated in both, but it's abstracted away with declarative programming. Like, a `filter()` or a `map()` transform in JavaScript is declarative programming, even in an otherwise imperative language. That's why it returns a new object with an updated state.

No. Standard DDL and DML are declarative in SQL, including DROP and INSERT. Those still don't tell the system how to accomplish the thing. Declarative doesn't mean idempotent, and it doesn't mean stateless.

Imperative SQL is the procedural elements that mostly do not exist at the standard level. Variables, control flow, and cursors.

On the other hand, if the same problem keeps happening, it's hard to argue that the problem isn't foundational to the design and that it should be called out until either the problem is fixed or the design abandoned.

This feels like a underlying property that contributes to of Benford's Law[0]. That is, most numbers we measure and record are the results of various independent (addition) and dependent (multiplication) factors stacking together, and we observe this property in the distribution of them.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law

The right of free speech is not wholly encompassed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In fact, it's the other way around, it's because the right of free speech is recognized as a universal, natural right then the US Federal Government is not permitted to make a law suppressing speech. The First Amendment does not create the right. The right is there, naturally, whether or not the United States or its constitution or government exists. The First Amendment merely explicitly states that the government isn't permitted to impede that right.

Using the existence of the First Amendment to narrow free speech as a right to what the government is permitted to do and nothing else is a severe perversion of both the document and the beliefs of the framers.

In short, "it's a private entity doing it" is an incredibly poor defense of behavior that suppresses speech. It's like how young children will defend their rude or offensive behavior with "it's not illegal." The reason that's an unconvincing argument is that it's an incredibly low bar. The world is full of behaviors that may not be so universally offensive or outrageous that people have explicitly written down that nobody is every allowed to do that thing. It's actually a very small range of possible behaviors that that covers.

The only reason that there isn't a general law barring private parties from restricting the speech of others is (a) one's right to free speech does not necessarily negate another's rights in the same or a different area, (b) one's rights do not entitle one to the use of things owned by others against their desires, and (c) any such law could be used by the government to indirectly suppress other rights.

The narrow nature of the First Amendment is not to be taken as an implication that the right is narrow. It's an admission that the law cannot perfectly protect human rights.

It's mostly down to preferences and needs.

DBeaver requires Java, supports more RDBMSs, supports plug-ins, supports ER diagrams, but is also a project split into a community/enterprise model so some features are just never going to be implemented or improved upon without you paying an annual fee.

HeidiSQL is written in Delphi, supports the major RDBMSs (except Oracle), and is more focused on being a query analyzer than anything else. There is no edition split or paid model, so you're more likely to see new features in the free edition.

IMX, HeidiSQL is faster. It loads quickly and performs better, though I will say that my experience with both is about 10 years old at this point. From my memory, the DBeaver interface has always felt clunky in that way unique to Java applications, and many of the features in DBeaver are things I never wanted or needed. At the time, HeidiSQL was Windows-exclusive, with Linux support only about a year or two old at this point. My opinion 10 years back was that I would use HeidiSQL when I could and DBeaver if I had to.

~5.3 Emma Stones

Vibe coding a low-stakes personal project is very different from vibe coding a hospital information system or a kernel patch. Learning you can get away with one doesn't mean you should translate that to the other.

All the projections I've seen have said that the earliest we might see the curve flatten is 2030.

It just takes that long to get a fab up and running.

Executing hardware hot-swap typically means telling the system that a component is going down. Then the system moves those resources to the other component to gracefully allow you to remove it without a restart.

Like it's not a case where you just yank out a CPU as you like as though it were a spindle in a RAID-6 array. Especially if there's only one CPU. The state machine can't maintain state if the only component that tracks and maintains state goes missing.

Ksplice can do that because the kernel is only in memory in one place an it never sleeps. It has to orchestrate a process that's always running, which is complex, but it's never more than one.

Now try patching glibc like that. Not only does almost every thread have it in memory, several of them will have it in process, and some of them will have it swapped to disk while the thread sleeps. You're going to quickly decide that you actually just want a little bit of downtime or else you want to stand up a redundant system. There's a reason that some live patching systems explicitly exclude glibc and similar libraries.

I don't know why US senators are up in arms about this. Trump was extremely clear when he gave them his budget that he wanted CISA's budget drastically cut. He also specifically directed CISA to shut down their election security office.

This is the "who killed Hannibal" meme. If Padilla and Warner didn't know about this, then they're incompetent themselves. Especially because they reported on it last year:

https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/news-coverage/cnn-tr...

Why did you forget this happened, Padilla?