handstitched

6 ms·

1.
by handstitched 3mo ago
It's a small difference, but if you had a choice between "more efficient AND less maintenance" and "less efficient and more maintenance" then it's easy to see why the permanent-magnet solution is preferred.
2.
by handstitched 7mo ago
It's been possible since Big Sur at least, the method for enabling it just changed woth Sonoma
3.
by handstitched 7mo ago
> You don't have to trust us. Git itself verifies every object by hash on the client side. If we flip a byte, git fsck rejects the entire pack. If I were to run 'git clone https://gitdelivr.net/$repoUrl ` then I
4.
by handstitched 7mo ago
Look at the wikipedia page for any given country, and I guarantee you that it cites the CIA World Factbook at least once (and probably several times [1] ). Saying "we don't need the world factbook because we have Wikipedia" i
5.
by handstitched 8mo ago
This was a great read. I've used the naive approach shown in the first example before and its always felt a bit clunky, but I wasnt aware of most of these language features. I'm definitely going to try this out next time I have to
6.
by handstitched 9mo ago
> secular culture is literally dying Can you elaborate on this? It doesn't match my experience at all.
7.
by handstitched 10mo ago
> To me, any software engineer who tries an LLM, shrugs and says “huh, that’s interesting” and then “gets back to work” is completely failing at their actual job, which is using technology to solve problems. I would argue that the "
8.
by handstitched 1y ago
OP is the developer & maintainer of the affected packages, so the attacker was able to use their phished credentials to upload compromised versions to NPM.