From the paper, Elevator currently supports only single-threaded binaries, does not support binaries using exception handling, has unsupported x64 extensions, and does not support self-modifying or JIT-compiled code. Slack is Electorn based, so t embeds Chromium and Node and depends on V8.
Twitter/X is a company, it calls itself whatever it wants, and is likely registered somewhere under a specific name. Okay, people don’t call it X, the same way people pronounce IKEA weirdly or refer to vacuums as hoovers.
Language is a malleable, artificial construct. What’s your point? That some people are stuck in their ways? Because the comment I was responding to was appalled that someone dares use the modern spelling for a country.
> The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now.
> This magazine…
I think saying "This magazine…" as if the flaws of Quanta are well understood and agreed may need additional elaboration. If you mean that experts have known this—well, the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the latest research itself.
> the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the latest research itself
Quanta articles are invariably horribly written, horribly explained, and constantly do this thing whether they simultaneously are pretentious and over complicate things while also belabouring simple, elementary concepts. Essentially it’s the worst of every world.
And that’s to say nothing about how they click bait everything.
Not the guy you’re responding to but Quanta articles are invariably horribly written, horribly explained, and constantly do this thing whether they simultaneously are pretentious and over complicate things while also belabouring simple, elementary concepts. Essentially it’s the worst of every world.
Blanket blocking socketcall() caused regressions for all 32-bit applications trying to make sockets. In theory, glibc disables socketcall when running on kernel version >= 4.3. In practice, Debian/Fedora/Ubuntu all set glibc's "expected kernel version" to 3.2, so socketcall() is still used on most 32-bit glibc binaries shipped.
Cryptography and video codecs are notable exceptions, they put a lot of effort to making the code provably memory safe: no recursion, limited use of stack variables, no dynamic allocations, etc. As a result, memory safe languages bring nothing but trouble by making it non deterministic, that’s especially true for crypto where compiler “optimisations” guarantee you side channels attacks.
Video codecs just don't need to do dynamic allocations because it's not relevant to the problem. There's still certainly plenty of opportunities for memory bugs because there's a lot of pointer math.
How is this POV compatible with the exploitable vulnerabilities, caused by memory safety, found in openh264, x264, dav1d, and practically every video decoder out there?
In cryptography, you want operations to run in constant time, even if it’s wasteful, otherwise an attacker could guess information about the key or plaintext by measuring execution times.
Modern compilers are extremely clever and will produce machine code that takes full advantage of modern CPU branch predictors, and reorder instructions to better take advantage of pipelining. This in itself will make the same code run at different speeds depending on the input data.
Then there is the whole issue of compiler version roulette. As a developer you have no idea which version of compilers your users and distros will use, and what new and wonderful optimisation they will bring.
Distributions using outdated (sorry “stable”) kernels are stupid.
We are not 20 years ago, the world in which it made sense doesn’t exist anymore, but the industry is slow to move on. Just pick a long term release and update it regularly.
Distros (point release distros) should use LTS kernels and keep up to date with them. Their "we'll maintain our own kernel branches" model either leads to many missed bugfixes, or duplicates Greg K-H's workload internally, for no practical benefit.
If a distro is suspicious of particular patches in the -stable tree, they could maintain a blacklist of them. However, instead of doing that and accruing overhead of possible future merge conflicts, they should hash out their concerns on the -stable mailing list.
Excepts the internet blackout has nothing to do with censorship at all. This is just Iran protecting itself from cyber attacks, if they had kept Internet running, they would have been completely pwned.
Come now, let's not be naïve. If protestors or dissenters are organizing over social media, or app-based Internet communications, shutting down the Internet is a great way to keep them in the dark and prevent the majority of them from either keeping up with local demonstrations or exfiltrating recordings of civil unrest.
It is true that shutting off your Internet prevents cyber-attacks, but imagine if it happened in the USA: it would effectively shut down much of our commerce and everyday living activities. In the West, Internet access is becoming more of an essential utility than the icing on the cake, or a recreational forum for malcontents and ne'er-do-wells. Or perhaps it's both at once.
Perhaps you are, instead, disingenuous, because the article you linked says nothing about the effects of an Internet blackout nor its motivations and now you're blathering about orchestration and arming, which likewise have nothing to do with an Internet blackout.
You’re correct, the article doesn’t say anything about that, I’m using my own judgement given the facts that I have.
All I know is, if I was at war with the USA, I would definitely cut the internet in my country. Not doing it is like being at war with a big maritime power, and not protecting your coastline.
But this article is about cyber attacks, radar interference, etc. on military and strategic targets. The US/Israel can still do these even with total internet blackout. We saw this in the war! Israel/US still bombed who and whatever they wanted! What does this have to do with internet censorship?
I find it interesting that the BBC published this at a time they are already under heavy criticism for their coverage of the war in the Middle East (where they didn’t blink at Trump’s genocidal threats and published an article claiming that Iranians wanted to be nuked).
Now we’re saying that war is just natural. It must be a coincidence.
reply