smitherfield

21 ms·

1.
by smitherfield 5y ago
> because you don't have a reason to reinvent the wheel [in Rust] This is a somewhat comical statement in a thread about "Rewrite it in Rust."
2.
by smitherfield 5y ago
No evidence? We know for a fact that US, Russian, Chinese, British, Israeli etc. intelligence agencies are looking for crypto vulnerabilities, and we know for a fact that they do not publicize the vulnerabilities they find.
3.
by smitherfield 5y ago
That's if you look at major PUBLICIZED attacks on TLS endpoints. It's quite plausible that the people who've found (i.e. are looking for) attacks based on incorrect crypto aren't publicizing them.
4.
by smitherfield 5y ago
But it wasn't an adverse inference in that case, at least not from Saddam's perspective. He wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, because he believed, not unreasonably (c.f. North Korea), that this would deter military action
5.
by smitherfield 5y ago
Mondale proposed some interesting ideas during his Presidential campaign, in particular a national industrial policy, that I think we would have done well to take heed of.
6.
by smitherfield 5y ago
I would (and do) consider it very suspicious.
7.
by smitherfield 5y ago
This is more like if the police come to search your house, and find that you've burned it down, or you've barricaded yourself inside with guns and hostages. But, let's assume for the sake of argument that your analogy is the
8.
by smitherfield 5y ago
I think a useful concept with this is the legal doctrine of adverse inference. [1] If one of the parties to a lawsuit conceals or destroys important evidence, it is assumed that that evidence would have been unfavorable to the party which
9.
by smitherfield 7y ago
"Or have everything you do on the web be phoned to Google, to improve your advertising experience." Chrome already does this.
10.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Speaking of, why both -ansi and -std=99 [ sic [1]]? [1] should be -std=c99
11.
by smitherfield 8y ago
All the discussion ITT so far has been about the concept or hardware implementation of full-memory encryption. I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts about the proposed API.
12.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Yeah, that's one of my biggest pet peeves when looking at other people's code (along with unnecessary dynamic allocations in general). One of the reasons I perhaps irrationally still prefer C++ to Rust is the pervasive use of dyna
13.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Why wouldn't an implementation along these lines be performant? template<typename... Ts> class SoA : public tuple<vector<Ts>...> { // ... template<size_t... Is> tupl
14.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Here's my second reply to him, where I myself point out that idealized Von Neumann machines don't exist in real life, and certain idealized O(n) operations (such as memcpy) may in real life for any possible "n" be cheape
15.
by smitherfield 8y ago
> "Technically" O(n) is the only O(n). In idealized algorithmic analysis, but not necessarily real life. "Amortized O(1)," which I assume you concede is a commonly-used, meaningful and legitimate term, means "t
16.
by smitherfield 8y ago
See my reply to boomlinde: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18988075#19000005
17.
by smitherfield 8y ago
>No, you still need to copy the old array to the new array. That's just a lock (nontrivial but O(1)) and a memcpy (technically O(n) but trivial, and O(1) for the common case if it's implemented with vector instructions), plus
18.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Prepending would be O(1) because it's creating a new array instead of prepending in place. Still bugs me (seems inelegant, even if not necessarily inefficient) so I wrote my own version: https://news.ycombinator.com/ite
19.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Yeah, a little OCD but I couldn't stand the first example (and some of the others). Here's a more reasonable implementation that doesn't special case (or more precisely wraps the special-casing in a standard library method):
20.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Yes, but only if you first call ios::sync_with_stdio(false); https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/io/ios_base/sync_with_stdi...
21.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Well of course. I originally linked to this code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18873581#18878500 But the edit window had passed by the time I changed it.
22.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Not really; I was basing it off of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18873581#18875961 as a semi-joke. I changed it to a relatively KISS and IMO genuinely beautiful version in the parent, for others' benefits here&#
23.
by smitherfield 8y ago
#!/usr/bin/env ruby puts((1..100).map do |n| "#{:Fizz if (n % 3).zero?}"\ "#{:Buzz if (n % 5).zero?}" .then .find { |s| !s.empty? } || n end)
24.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Cleaner and more idiomatic version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18873581#18877403
25.
by smitherfield 8y ago
> I wonder what the author thinks the competition might be? I think he meant beautiful in the conceptual sense (e.g. a beautiful algorithm) not the aesthetic sense. Aesthetically speaking, Ruby would definitely be in my top 3 and possi
26.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Dunno about other countries, but it seems unlikely it'd be different unless their tax authorities were born yesterday. Then again, by US standards most other countries make tax evasion a national sport, so I guess it's conceivable
27.
by smitherfield 8y ago
Contractors pay income tax.
28.
by smitherfield 8y ago
You can already do this, but it would only result in being taxed twice—first when you earn your wealth as ordinary income or capital gains, then again when you draw the salary or dividends from the company. No such thing as a self-licking i
29.
by smitherfield 8y ago
>The problem would then become people using their corporations to make all of their purchases. Their corporations would own their yachts, their houses, their cars, etc. This is illegal.
30.
by smitherfield 8y ago
It seems to be riffing off the recent Gmail "Smart Compose" feature. https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/subject-write-emails-...

More ›