electronvolt

61 ms·

1.
by electronvolt 7mo ago
Yeah, I bike regularly on and off (season/mood/goals dependent, honestly), and knowing what I should expect on my commute to work /and/ back is important... and not something I can predict without looking at the weather
2.
by electronvolt 7mo ago
I guess I'd say -- I think you're right that you shouldn't (ideally) be able to trigger true deadlocks/livelocks with just serializable transactions + an OLTP DBMS. That doesn't mean it won't happen, of course.
3.
by electronvolt 7mo ago
I mean, you say that, but systems like Spanner exist & I think the fact that it's used for Gmail, Docs, etc. has demonstrated that for a large range of OLTP workloads, serializable everywhere and also performant /is/ poss
4.
by electronvolt 1y ago
You can, with some programming languages, require a proof of this (see: Rocq, formerly 'coq'). I think a more interesting case might be showing functional equivalence on some subset of all inputs (because tbh, showing functional e
5.
by electronvolt 2y ago
I mean, in C++ (17? 20? Whenever constexpr was introduced) it's totally possible to create a library that allows you to build a SQL query via the language's string concatenation libraries/etc., but only allows you to do it wi
6.
by electronvolt 7y ago
Proofs are actually incredibly hard to review. Problems will be found in what had been accepted to be a "good" proof years to decades later. There's a whole movement to move proofs over to something/anything more verif
7.
by electronvolt 8y ago
Yeah, all I was really saying was that the grandparent's comment and the parent's comment weren't in opposition. Microsoft owns the data center the code lives in and certainly takes care of physical security.
8.
by electronvolt 8y ago
I disagree. Phone encryption should ideally be open source-able and it's security should rely as entirely on a device specific key as possible. I think this makes more sense for a secret project (e.x. the next iPhone), but honestly as
9.
by electronvolt 8y ago
Yeah, which is hosted on Azure, a data center that Microsoft owns and employs guards for, and secured behind our standard corporate authentication. :) (Source: I work at Microsoft, near the VSTS team.)
10.
by electronvolt 9y ago
It's definitely true that Meltdown is a more immediate problem--but Spectre is basically the problem that will last. We can move kernel memory into another process space, take the perf hit, and correct most of the meltdown problems. S
11.
by electronvolt 9y ago
I'd disagree as far as your position on the word "gender"--I think actually "race" is a much better example of something that has had many meanings over the course of its lifetime in the language, and isn't nec
12.
by electronvolt 9y ago
> But, the whole of his complaint rests on this deficiency. It's not possible to constructively disagree with someone who is unwilling to acknowledge basic facts, or who promotes an alternate reality. This really needs to be emphasi
13.
by electronvolt 9y ago
Late response, but: coq has the optional verification that you're proposing. :) In my experience, Coq is not significantly harder than OCaml to write unverified code in. It's missing some nice shorthand syntax, but other than th
14.
by electronvolt 9y ago
I'd agree, and the article basically says the same thing--the language is too expressive, and therefore hard to analyze. I don't know that much about the Ether devs, but I'd expect it just didn't occur to them--even amo
15.
by electronvolt 9y ago
> We're not even close to a world where tools can offer amazing protection. Actually, we're reasonably close--the tools aren't quite there yet for mass consumption (many are still feel quite researchy), but given that the
16.
by electronvolt 9y ago
So it turns out you can basically use type theory to encode a surprisingly large number of desirable traits about your program. (Caveat being that as you get more restrictive, you reject more "good" programs at compile time--no f
17.
by electronvolt 9y ago
I'll have to watch this later, but I'd argue the issue, at least for me, isn't really surface level understanding. (At least, the kind I think could plausibly be imparted in 4 minutes. :)) The basic idea of deep learning has
18.
by electronvolt 9y ago
> I'm getting kind of sick of this "deep learning is a black box" trope, because it's really not true anymore. That's fair/probably true. I think there's two things that drive that--one, lack of a widel
19.
by electronvolt 9y ago
I think you're kind of missing the author's point. > My feeling is that the "perfect" abstraction of reality to geometry is actually a very high order function that we don't fully understand. You don't need
20.
by electronvolt 9y ago
You get other advantages for doing three/five node replication--online updates are free if you require (n-1) compatibility. Reality is that if you need to hit 5+ nines and require strong consistency guarantees (like "we never lose
21.
by electronvolt 10y ago
Having experienced slight feelings of melange/detachment following novels, video games, and movies in the past, and having experienced what this article is describing: it's not quite the same feeling. With movies/novels&#x2F
22.
by electronvolt 10y ago
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." goes for attacks, too. Why spend weeks/months searching for 0-days and hoping they will remain viable when you can spin up a fake login page and a bit.ly, find the people to target
23.
by electronvolt 10y ago
> here are at last 3 obvious approaches: (1) applying the functions sequentially, (2) concatenating their outputs, (3) XORing their outputs. None of these takes rocket science to figure out, and some 5 seconds of thinking would easily ru
24.
by electronvolt 10y ago
> I don't know when you read my comment, but I edited it (I think) some ~15 minutes before you posted your comment to clarify that I wasn't referring to stacking arbitrary hashes. Read it again. I was referring to stacking hash
25.
by electronvolt 10y ago
> Two layers is at least as secure as a single one of either layer. This is not uniformly true for cryptosystems--it is not naively the case that P(Q(X)) is a secure form of encryption, just because P/Q is. A contrived example is w
26.
by electronvolt 10y ago
I'd argue that they pretty clearly are different, if you're talking about generic laziness-as-a-quality versus subject specific laziness. Someone who isn't interested in school might be willing to work very hard at improving
27.
by electronvolt 10y ago
Which can (and should) be stored in a way that requires a password to access (ssh supports this, as do most other certificate systems).
28.
by electronvolt 11y ago
1. From glancing at it: this is a pretty ugly solution. On the plus side: It's minimal and doesn't spend much time building abstractions on top of the basic lists/etc. that scheme provides. However, it certainly isn't
29.
by electronvolt 11y ago
(Note: I work for Microsoft, although not on the OS. I mostly use Debian and Ubuntu at home for things other than gaming, and know a bit about security--but I'm a bit rusty since I wasn't following it from 2010-2014 and haven&#x
30.
by electronvolt 11y ago
I think the fundamental thing is that it is not a rational fear--nuclear is associated with bombs that flatten cities and radiation is, to many people, a simply scary unknown that they can't touch, smell, or see, but which might kill

More ›