AnyOldName3

Most software is like this, but you also don’t get to look at the source code either.

It looks like the change happened nearly a year ago, and no one’s kicked up a fuss, so either it was done properly (i.e. past contributors were contacted and consented to the licence change, and any that didn’t had their contributions replaced), or there’s a big problem once a past contributor notices.

It doesn’t make it any more legal to fork the project without going back to the last GPL3 commit, though, as any contributions after the license change have to be assumed to be covered by the new licence, so the combined work would be under an invalid licence (as the old and new licences aren’t compatible) rather than being still covered by the old licence.

Normally, I’d completely dismiss the possibility that a licence change like this could have been done properly, but Stenzek is associated with Dolphin Emulator, which did manage to pull off a switch from GPL2 to GPL3+ by emailing lots of people and replacing a lot of code.

The licence doesn’t permit derivative works, so no forks and no downstream packages.

Someone doesn’t understand the Windows design language. Anxiety would be a yellow warning triangle. That’s a red error circle, so something really has gone wrong and you’re right to be panicking about it, and better remember what it is before the consequences become too dire.

The pun doesn’t even make sense unless the term was already in common use when Hopper wrote it. If you don’t already know what a computer bug is, the note sounds deranged.

At the moment, they’re already at risk of being removed by the government, who can make them illegal, and simultaneously at risk of being removed by payment processors, who can prevent the stores from operating. It makes no difference to the government whether they’re also the payment processor. They could remove them anyway. Having two entities with unilateral power to remove something can’t be worse than just having one of them.

They can do a really shit job of administering payment processes in a transparent and democratic manner before they end up being worse than the status quo where it’s entirely untransparent and undemocratic. Also, governments already have the power to make things they don’t like illegal, so there’s no reason to expect they’d block payments for things they’ve left legal, whereas payment processors currently block plenty of legal things.

Soldiers are supposed to question potentially-illegal orders and refuse to execute them if their commanding officer can’t give a good reason why they’re justified. Being in charge doesn’t mean you’re infallible, and there are plenty of mistakes programmers make that the compiler can detect.

Most of the UK’s COVID fraud was from giving out contracts to companies that knew full well that they couldn’t deliver, e.g. a £40 million PPE contract to the landlord of the Health Secretary’s local pup, so it’s not absurd to claim that the point of those contracts wasn’t to save the economy, but rather transfer taxpayer money from the treasury to friends of Conservative Party leadership while there was still something left to loot. There was also lots lost in loans to fictional companies and furlough payments to fictional employees, of which a minority went to small businesses gaming the system, and a lot to organised crime gaming the system and then laundering the money so it couldn’t be traced and recovered (without giving the Serious Fraud Office and National Crime Agency enough budget to hire a workable number of forensic accountants).

That’s not what Rust’s documentation says. It does a compile-time bounds check if it can prove what the index might be during compilation, and a runtime bounds check if it can’t. In release mode, it tries harder to prove the maximum index is below the minimum length, but it still falls back to a runtime bounds check if it can’t unless you use get_unchecked, which is unsafe.

If you’re going to change the definition of words, it’s pretty easy to show that garbage collection on its own is sufficient, but it’s not possible to have a useful conversation if someone’s using their own personal definition of the terms being discussed. The generally accepted definition of memory safety includes deeming out-of-bounds accesses and other spatial memory safety issues unsafe.

The previous government wrote off billions in COVID-related fraud, and this guy got less than forty grand. Either there were millions of people defrauding the government, or the average incident involved much, much more money.

For a start, having a garbage collector doesn’t mean its use is mandatory, but even in a language where the garbage collector is mandatory, keeping an array alive as long as any references to it exist doesn’t stop you doing things like getting muddled about its length and reading/writing past the end. Mandatory garbage collection only prevents temporal memory bugs like use-after-free, not spatial memory safety bugs like buffer overruns, which need to be prevented by other mechanisms like bounds checks.

Garbage collection doesn’t guarantee memory safety and it’s perfectly possible to create a memory-safe language without garbage collection. There are plenty of garbage collectors for C++ (and until C++23, support for garbage collection was part of the standard, although no one implemented it), and languages like C# let you interact with garbage-collected objects in unsafe blocks.

Nail polish typically uses acetone as its solvent, and despite smelling, acetone is something that humans naturally have low levels of in their blood, so slightly higher levels are pretty safe. Obviously, having exposure to large quantities is bad, but that isn’t how nail polish is typically used.

Lots of people can really easily go cross-eyed and look at these with no practice whatsoever. Fewer people can do the parallel kind with no practice or with the amount of practice they’ve already done.

This isn’t really the same kind of bug. Those bugs made instructions emit the wrong answer, which is obviously really bad, and they’re really rare. The bugs in the article make instructions take different amounts of time depending on what else the CPU has done recently, which isn’t something anyone would notice except that by asking the kernel to do something and measuring the time to execute affected instructions, an attacker that only had usermode access could learn secrets that should only be available to the kernel.

I imagine getting a notification on their phone reminding them if they’ve not brushed their teeth by a set time might help forgetful people to remember to brush their teeth, and if it’s via Home Assistant, which is self-hosted, entirely local, and open-source, there’s no downside other than having to set it up in the first place.

Someone might have thought it was so obvious that it didn’t need stating and would just ruin the joke. Alternatively, someone who was somehow unaware of the song and assumed that would be the case for nearly everyone else might have overconfidently decided it was a stretch without looking at the first line of the song.