brasic

7 ms·

1.
by brasic 29d ago
Someone needs to option this for a book or movie. I’d read it!
2.
by brasic 29d ago
It’s hard to overstate the reputation of the author of this post. Everything good about GitHub’s internal systems seemed to have his name all over it (I realize that today this statement hits different than a few years ago). Our times at GH
3.
by brasic 3y ago
The web-flow signing system is for users’ convenience in places where it’s not feasible to sign the commit with their own private key: commits made in the web interface or on an ephemeral GH-provisioned VM (codespace). For the latter, you a
4.
by brasic 3y ago
The research you do in that scenario would just tell you the prices which shares had actually changed hands at. A decentralized market-based price discovery mechanism cannot be considered collusion or price fixing, since it’s exactly the op
5.
by brasic 3y ago
> but you still need a Personal Access Token to integrate pull requests and issues with your Git client (Nitpick from a former GH employee) PATs really are almost exclusively intended for personal testing with curl and such. Th
6.
by brasic 3y ago
Thanks for the links! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that “E2E” doesn’t mean much for a meta service.
7.
by brasic 3y ago
Yep, to be clear I was agreeing with lolinder. I would have posted top level but they had already expressed almost exactly my objection to the article so I replied to avoid redundancy.
8.
by brasic 3y ago
It sounds almost exactly like the mechanics of a session cookie as implemented on nearly every website on earth. Exchange a password for a bearer credential that is randomly chosen and revocable. There are only so many basic ideas in securi
9.
by brasic 3y ago
“Please read my rant about how this useless hair-shirt I wear to clear first party cookies too often breaks the web (for me)” > the web has no notion of a “device”, and this is a very intentional design choice made for privacy purpos
10.
by brasic 3y ago
Mr. President, we must not allow a mutant AI super soldier gap!
11.
by brasic 3y ago
It doesn’t show as flagged for me. Time heals all wounds, if your comment is not objectionable it will usually be vouched for eventually. Which is one of the reasons it’s a rule here that you don’t complain about voting. Such comments also
12.
by brasic 3y ago
What do you mean? WhatsApp rolled out E2E encryption between 2014 and 2016. It’s by far the largest messaging service that is e2e encrypted by default. I think it’s more than fair to call it ahead of the curve for a service of its size. ht
13.
by brasic 3y ago
Process separation was already in place. The PKCS#11 library is loaded by a long lived helper process, not ssh-agent itself. > (Note to the curious readers: for security reasons, and as explained in > the "Background"
14.
by brasic 3y ago
How would this even be mitigated while preserving the (wacky) existing support for runtime-selected PKCS#11 provider libraries? It strikes me that the most compatible way might be to double down on the wackiness and try to perform the requi
15.
by brasic 3y ago
Pre-acquisition WhatsApp was built using Erlang and had an impressively large user-to-server ratio IIRC. I expect that since then things have mostly been rebuilt to use existing meta shared infrastructure which might not be as stable or eff
16.
by brasic 3y ago
Glad to see a custom merge driver being used here - they’re one of the most powerful of git’s obscure features. Large teams working on a monorepo inevitably start noticing that particular files are magnets for conflicts (or other times, in
17.
by brasic 3y ago
From OP: > Now with all those aptitude training [...] that require you to turn on your webcam They are referring to an automated personality or skills test to screen candidates. The webcam is to make sure the applicant is the one
18.
by brasic 3y ago
The conflation of “spyware” ie tracking for monetization purposes with telemetry used by developers to ensure the health of production systems is foolish and harmful. Homebrew is a complex system that can break in lots of ways, and it’s bei
19.
by brasic 3y ago
I assume OP was referring to “source available” schemes where the source is published or sometimes selectively disclosed but not licensed for anything other than review, ie you lack the right to run or copy it. Needless to say, it’s not acc
20.
by brasic 3y ago
I’ve done nothing of the sort. As I said throughout this thread, the injunction prohibits any communications based on a vague and subjective content or motive between a group of approx. 500,000 citizens who are US government employees and s
21.
by brasic 3y ago
The actual letter is here: https://twitter.com/Dexerto/status/1677027980940398599 edit: It looks like this was already submitted and I missed it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36621741 . Loo
22.
Twitter accuses Threads of IP theft(dexerto.com)
3 points by brasic 3y ago|1 comments
23.
by brasic 3y ago
Adding a list of carve outs doesn’t make the ban ok.
24.
by brasic 3y ago
Thank you. The real issue here is a small number of companies have become the defacto gatekeepers of a large amount of public discourse. That’s a major problem that this debate is just a symptom of.
25.
by brasic 3y ago
A narrowly tailored prohibition on specific speech aimed at specific government officials may be permissable in some cases. This injunction is carelessly worded to apply to millions of people and to preclude essentially all communications r
26.
by brasic 3y ago
The targets of the injunction are the following agencies. The wording makes clear that all members of said agencies are in scope of the injunction: HHS: 80,000 NIAID: 18,000 CDC: 11,000 Census Bureau: 5,000 FBI: 40,000 (double counted under
27.
by brasic 3y ago
I linked that in my original comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36616058
28.
by brasic 3y ago
I know very well what an injunction is and does. You seem to be mistaken on what “law” is. It is by no means limited to statutory text or even final judicial opinions. The fact that contempt of court is the only real penalty available for v
29.
by brasic 3y ago
It’s a blatantly illegal prior restraint on speech, completely at odds with the values the plaintiffs and judge claim to hold. Free speech cuts both ways. If you’re pleased when a judge bans any and all communication among millions of citiz
30.
by brasic 3y ago
Read the entire injunction. It’s only seven pages. Then tell me with a straight face that you think it’s a good thing for free speech. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... It amounts to “no o

More ›