HN user

maxboone

351 karma

Student CS @ Leiden Linux Performance Team @ Akamai

--- meet.hn/city/nl-Leiden

Socials: - github.com/maxboone - instagram.com/maxboone ---

Posts8
Comments114
View on HN

You should use the subject identifiers, not the usernames. You store a mapping of provider & subject to internal users yourself.

But this has been a problem in the past where people would hijack the email and create a new Google account to sign in with Google with.

Similarly, when someone deletes their account with a provider, someone else can re-register it and your hash will end up the same. The subject identifiers should be unique according to the spec.

How does that work, when you add an OAuth app, the resulting tokens are specific to that app having a certain set of permissions?

It's not a new attack vector as in giving too many scopes (beyond the usual "get personal details").

I am curious how this external OAuth app managed to move through the systems laterally.

RAM producers aren't adding more capacity on the non-HBM side of things, so we shouldn't see a dramatic drop in pricing if AI HBM memory demand drops.

QEMU device that exposes a vfio-user socket for a PCI endpoint controller, Linux PCI endpoint controller driver and a userspace endpoint function.

It's very unstable at the moment but plan to have it fully implemented and working by the end of next month.

Using it to build a virtualized computational storage device for research.

Absolutely, and the init system does not even have to set up the filesystem and all. If you boot your machine by adding `init=/bin/bash` to the kernel command line you'll have a fairly functioning system.

Do anything necessary from there to boot your game, and record those steps in a script. When that's done you can just point your init cmdline to that script (doesn't even have to be a binary, a script with the #!/bin/bash shebang should just work).

That's not the definition, the definition of populism w.r.t. this paper is well defined. It is literally on page 2:

We benefited greatly from the fact that the academic literature of recent years has converged on a consensus definition of populism that is easily applicable across space and time and for right-wing and left-wing populists alike. According to today’s workhorse definition, populism is defined as a political style centered on the supposed struggle of “people vs. the establishment” (Mudde 2004). Populists place the narrative of “people vs. elites” at the center of their political agenda and then claim to be the sole representative of “the people.” This definition has become increasingly dominant, and is now also widely used by economists (see Section 2, and the recent survey paper by Guriev and Papaioannou, 2020). Populist leaders claim to represent the “true, common people” against the dishonest “elites,” thus separating society into two seemingly homogeneous and antagonistic groups.