Within a month of the decree [that Acutis should be beatified], the beatification ceremony was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, during which the country was placed on lockdown.
Of course the first millennial saint got delayed by COVID.
I think this comment has a good point:
The maintainer made the package offline, but is the overall effect net positive or negative for user's security?
Without the browser integration, the user has to copy the passwords over clipboard. Is clipboard (especially on X11 systems) more secure than KeePassXC IPC interface? The KeePassXC IPC clients are authenticated. Is it more secure to use the clipboard over the authenticated IPC channel?
Without the browser integration the user has to verify the domain manually. The browser plugin I use uses TOFU. Is having the user manually verify the domain more secure than having a browser plugin do it automatically?
Without the browser integration the user has to copy the password into the right field. If the user pastes the password into the wrong field, it might get read by javascript and sent who knows where. Is it more secure to have the user paste the password, or have the browser plugin enter the password in the right field automatically?
These scenarios are what I came up with in a few minutes and I'm sure I could find more. The scenarios only concern browser integration, because that's the only networked feature I use. I'm sure I could come up with scenarios involving other features, if I were using them.
It's a shame that no proper analysis was made and no findings were presented to the public before the change. Maybe it would have turned out that the risks of having networked features outweigh the benefits.
Adding onto that the loss of USB YubiKey support, and it really does feel like disabling all these features is just a "feel good" response to the latest high-profile attack (xz).
Just to call it out for anyone skimming:
what we tend to lump together into "ancient egypt" really gets going about 3000BC
That was 3000 BC, not 3000 years ago. As in, when the Romans and Muslims were conquering Egypt between 30 BC and AD 650, "Ancient Egypt" was already as (or more) ancient to them as "Ancient Greece" or "Ancient Rome" is to us today.
We had demo floppies for The Lion King and Aladdin for MS DOS—just the first level of each, which was more than enough for eight year old me.
Dawn of
- 24 Hours Remain -
I've played games that would be if they were rated.
I've seen games you people wouldn't believe… Tacky scripts on fire off the shoulder of Orion… I watched C-cups glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain… Time to die.
If you have one apple and john gives you one apple, how many apples do you have? 2.
You seem to imply that this is fundamentally math, but I'd say it's not. To me, you're using mathematics as a language to describe something physical, and that's the difference between thinking mathematics is invented rather than discovered.
At a fundamental level there's just the random chaos of particles popping in and out of existence—undifferentiated leptons, quarks, bosons, etc. We humans have arbitrarily decided on boundaries to define an abstract system with "John," "you," "John's apple," and "your apple." We noticed that these groups of particles, at a macro scale, have a very high likelihood of moving together in certain patterns, so we think them as having an identity—and from there we conceptualized things like "give" and "have" and "quantity", and developed language to describe quantities. Then we came to understand the emergent properties of the system we created—and we call that arithmetic.
So 1 + 1 = 2 because that's what we invented, and we invented it because, if you conceptualize the universe as having discrete objects with identities, then over time the (constantly changing) collections of particles that make up those objects tend to behave in such a way we can describe their quantities like this. The particles don't care about that, though—especially the ones at the boundaries of these objects we're imagining, where things get really fuzzy.
Humans evolved to have senses of touch, proprioception, self, and so on. Our brains are wired to keep track a boundary between "me" and "not me." It's natural we'd extend that to everything else we see in the world, and imagine that they too have "self" and "not self." We often assume this is a fundamental property of reality, but our sense of self is just that—a sense. It only exists in our mind. True it's based on sensory input, but because it was advantageous to evolve to be sensitive to certain arrangements of particles—just like there's nothing inherently "red" about photons with 700nm wavelengths, but it was useful for our brains to evolve to see color.
Why is one particle part of "you" but not the particles nearby that we've decided are part of the "air"? You can say things about electromagnetic repulsion and string and weak forces, but ultimately it's because your brain decided it is.
If alien brains worked differently and keyed in on different patterns in the random chaos of reality, is it really guaranteed they'd invent language to describe quantity? That they'd use mathematics anything like ours? We can't imagine conceiving of reality differently from how we do, but a failure of imagination is not proof of impossibility.
"Please consider making a pull request once you've figured it out." :D
I'm not sure I understand the concern with null checking.
An instance can now be partially-initialized before calling the super constructor, so a null checker will have to track those field assignments. But that's not very different from what already happens, right? It would have to trace all the code paths leading to super(...) and decide each field's uninitialized, so it can carry that state forward into the super constructor—like it would for any other method call in a constructor that could see a partially-initialized this.
Also note that a constructor will only be allowed to initialize fields declared in the same class before calling the super constructor, and it won't be allowed to reference the this instance beforehand either.
It's a guy with a climate science and policy degree.
Thanks for this! I'd never bothered to learn what linear types actually do beyond the sorts of vague explanations you mentioned. This made a lot of sense.
OP, what did you do with Déagol? I know it's your birthday, OP, but where's Déagol?
Oh, I thought you were a different redditor for a second…
Unit tests didn't do this to you.
There are also animals that are not immune to the jellyfish sting and can still kill the jellyfish. A human with a net is an example. :D
That $4 million is not accounting for any savings, stocks, 401(k), etc., that he missed out on. The guy's almost retirement age and presumably prison didn't have a great 401(k) match.
Continuing with your example of 100k salary: contributing a flat 10% of his salary with no employer match, over 40 years, would be another $1.5 to $2 million. With a decent employer match (say, 100% match up to 6% of salary) that might be more like $3 million. So not counting any other types of investment, we're already at that $7 million figure—and we haven't even awarded punitive damages.
I do agree that $100k salary is likely an over estimate, but my point is that he didn't just lose out on income, but also on 40 years to invest that income. Sure, we can't put a dollar amount on time, but this lump sum may be this guy's only chance of having savings for retirement, medical expenses, home ownership, etc.
Robert DuBoise on the day of his arrest at age 18, and the day he was freed from prison by DNA at 56
pics