HN user
CTF stands for Capture the Flag. So with that definition you have exactly zero more information about the article then without it. So I assume next you want a short description of what it actually means, like "CTF (Capture the Flag) are security competitions where the objective is to break...", which is completely ridiculous to include in an article aimed specifically at the CTF crowd.
For people who are confused by this comment: lol = laughing out loud!
That's the main reason, why I hope Google does not win this AI war.
I mean the inner select uses "limit 1", right? So it will usually (but not always as I said in another comment) only delete and return a single task.
We use a similar approach.
Fun fact: A query like this will, once in a blue moon, return more than limit (here 1) row, since the inner query is executed multiple times and returns different ids, which is surprising for a lot of people. If your code does not expect that, it may cause problems. (The article seems to, since it uses a list and iteration to handle the result.)
delete from task
where task_id in
( select task_id
from task
order by random() -- use tablesample for better performance
for update
skip locked
limit 1
)
returning task_id, task_type, params::jsonb as params
Also, if your tasks take a long time, it will create long-running transactions, which may cause dead tuple problems. If you need to avoid that, you can mark the task as "running" in a short-lived transaction and delete it in another. It becomes more complicated then, since you need to handle the case that your application dies while it has taken a task.
This file from chapter 1 cannot be opened: arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S ("Failed to load file").
It's also not visible in the directory tree on the left.
(Oddly enough another comment mentioned this already and is voted dead. Why?)
I would also really like to know that!
It generally seems to be a thing in trading: https://databento.com/pcaps
There is also this (though this page does not specify what pcap means): https://www.lseg.com/en/data-analytics/market-data/data-feed...
"For this initial test I’ll be comparing the free version of ChatGPT to the free version of Google Gemini, that is GPT-3.5 to Gemini Pro 1.0."
The free version of ChatGPT is 4o now, isn't it? So maybe Gemini has not gotten worse, but the free alternatives are now better? When I compare ChatGPT-4o with Gemini-Advanced (wich is 1.5 Pro, I believe) the latter is just so much worse.
Thank you!
It now says "GPT inaccessible or not found", when I follow the link. Would someone share the prompt here? I am also very interested.
The removal of the parentheses does not change the behavior of the program. I guess that would not be considered "breaking" the code.
I see. Thanks for taking the time to reply!
I agree, I would prefer JSON (or YAML) for example for configuration files. That is for stuff that humans actually read. I was thinking about using JSON/XML as a data exchange format between computers, because the context of this discussion has revolved about things like JSON/XML-Schema, JSON/XPath and SOAP/OpenAPI. There is a large trend to replace XML with JSON as data format for inter machine communication, and it is confusing to me.
I probably phrased my question poorly. Why would I use a tool which is not or poorly maintained for a probably already outdated version of a specs, when I can use something else, that has been used for years by countless companies in productions? The advantages must be huge. And I don't know what they are.
OpenAPI is another example. There are threads on hacker news about generating code from OpenAPI specs. These always seem to say "oh, yes don't use tool X, use tool Y it does not have that problem, although it also doesn't support Z". The consensus seems to be to not generate code from an OpenAPI specification but to just use it as documentation, since all generators are more or less broken. Contrast that with for example JAXB (which is not an exact replacement I know), which has been battle tested for years.
Can you name some of these reasons? Or give me link? Honest question!
I haven't looked at JSON Schema in detail so please correct me if I am wrong, but I had the impression that the JSON Schema specification is still largely unfinished and evolving. That means you need to know which version the tool you use supports. And when I was looking for JSON Schema validators for Java all I found were projects on GitHub, which often were abandoned and referred the user to another GitHub project which was also abandoned. There does not seem to be support from an established project or vendor.
Compare that to XML where we have a plethora of established tools (Woodstoxx, JAXB, etc.).
What I have trouble to understand, which everybody else just seems to accept as obvious, is why one would take on these problems? Is JSON Schema more powerful than XML Schema? Does the use of JSON have advantages over using XML? When we are talking about a client program calling a server API with JSON/XML, why do we care about the format of data exchanged? What advantages does JSON have in this case in contrast to XML (or for that matter a binary format like Protocol Buffers)? Isn't this the most boring part of the application, which you would want to just get out of the way and work? What are the advantages of JSON over XML that would lead me to deal with the problems of evolving specifications and unreliable tooling?
(And just to repeat, since everybody seems to have a different opinion about this than me, I must be missing something and really would like to learn what!)
So true. Also becomes apparent from this sentence in the Hackerone report:
"This report seems entirely correct and it hurts in my soul."
and the blog:
"[...] shipping a heap overflow in code installed in over twenty billion instances is not an experience I would recommend."
Harsh to have to bear that responsibility for so little reward.
Great video! Thanks for the recommendation.
Long running transactions can lead to an accumulation of dead tuples: https://brandur.org/postgres-queues
I suggest all HN articles must define all abbreviations and acronyms or be removed.
I can't decide if you are joking?
HR = Human Resources
PC = Personal Computer
HN = Hacker News
OP = Original Poster (?)
M.S. = Master of Science
certs = certificates
My problem with IntelliJ (which I used to love), is that with each release it becomes slower and slower, while adding a bunch of features that, following the law of diminishing marginal utility, by now have negligible utility.
The time it takes to start a Java program in a Maven project is excruciating. And for unit tests or small utilities that's something I need to do countless times a day. While some random code analysis feature really is maybe helpful once a year. I actually reverted back from the last release because it got so bad.
Am I the only one with this problem? Has anybody found a solution for it?
The people on the receiving end of this joke, are people who would think it's ok to do black face. Why is that racist?
Those are some candid remarks by the new CEO.
"I have over 40 years of legal and restructuring experience. [...] Never in my career have I seen such a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information as occurred here. From compromised systems integrity and faulty regulatory oversight abroad, to the concentration of control in the hands of a very small group of inexperienced, unsophisticated[1] and potentially compromised individuals, this situation is unprecedented."[2]
I am really looking forward to the next Matt Levine column going through this filing!
[1] Ouch that hurts. At least you want to go down in history as a criminal mastermind!
[2] https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/33/188450/042020648...
Your writing reminds me a lot of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
'The real cycle you're working on is a cycle called yourself. The machine that appears to be "out there" and the person that appears to be "in here" are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality or fall away from Quality together.'
So-called crypto "exchanges" often function as a mix of exchange, broker-deal and bank.
No, the banks are committed. They can sell the debt to others, but if that fails, they just have to finance it themselves.
Musk actually can get out of the deal if he doesn't have the financing. But he has the financing, because the banks signed commitment letters. These commitment letters are valid until the beginning of next year. That's why he tried to drag out the lawsuit in the hope, that deadline might be passed.
What used to happen before there were poison pills, was a corporate raider would say "I want to buy this company, and I offer 100$ per share. If not everybody agrees to sell to me, but I get more the 50% of shares I will replace the board and then offer a merger in which 30$ per share are offered. The board (which I just instituted) will agree to my offer." That means after a raider has the majority of shares he can stiff the remaining minority shareholders. Of course people knew this on the initial offer and were therefore pressured to accept it or risk losing a lot of money later. I assume you agree that making this possible is not in the interest of sharedholders (or companies), although it made some people very wealthy back in the days. The Delaware Supreme Court considered, that such an extreme threat to shareholders justified extreme countermeasures such as the poison pill. (All of the above just tries to paraphrase Matt Levine, which I can really recommend if one wants to understand such things.)
The other shareholders don't need to have the money:
"Another, perhaps more practical provision of the pill says that the board can just exchange each right for one share of stock, for free, meaning in essence that the board can double everyone else’s number of shares of Twitter while holding Musk’s constant, without asking anyone to put in more money." (From a recent Money Stuff.)
The other shareholders don't need to have the money:
"Another, perhaps more practical provision of the pill says that the board can just exchange each right for one share of stock, for free, meaning in essence that the board can double everyone else’s number of shares of Twitter while holding Musk’s constant, without asking anyone to put in more money." (From a recent Money Stuff.)
It also gives reasons why poison pills were allowed by the Delaware Supreme Court (and not the SEC).