staticassertion

8 ms·

121.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Isn't this very typical? Also, what is the proposal?
122.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
This ignores that by publicly releasing the patch is motivated.
123.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> The author of iTerm2 initially didn’t consider it severe enough to warrant an immediate release, but they now seem to have reconsidered. It's funny that we still have the same conversation about disclosure timelines. 18 days is pl
124.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Would it be possible to do somethign like editions for proc macros, or have crates establish "this is a v2 proc macro" or something? There are a lot of things I'd love to see change in a v2 but it'd all be breaking.
125.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I think that they arguably do when they publish to a registry. I think that crosses a bridge from "I'm just writing software" and "I'm publishing software for consumption". Arguably , to be clear, I don't
126.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Sorry I'm just gonna copy some of this directly from tweets about sandboxing that I'd written. I think it is a mistake to say "cargo build does not need to be sandboxed because cargo test is not". A very tricky part of s
127.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Legitimately, I have had to stay away from certain linting tools because of how slow they are. I'll check this out. cfn-lint is due for one of these rewrites, it's excruciating. I made some patches to experiment with it and it cou
128.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Sure, but that doesn't really change anything. The poster plainly states: > Money is not given to good ideas (though, it doesn’t hurt). Money is given to friends. I have an obvious counter example. I'm sure money is invested fo
129.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
You can think that because you've read the article.
130.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
You didn't click the link. Who are you to say that they aren't solving actual problems? You might not be their target. The whole article is dedicated to explaining why they're building their product.
131.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I'm sure VCs give money to friends but I didn't know any investors when I raised millions. They invested money because they thought it was a good idea.
132.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. What did I call ai slop?? Who said I hate ai????? No clue. Electron???? What are you talking about lol
133.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> These aren't projects you would characterize as people being cavalier. I probably would. You mentioned the linux kernel, which I think is a perfect example of software that has had a ridiculous, perhaps worst-in-class attitude tow
134.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
It's a bit vague and I have to balance that out against a lot of stuff you've said so idk.
135.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I don't care what "slogan" you say, I'm just trying to see if you hold the opinions of an antivaxxer and for some reason you refuse to make any claim that would help avail me of that position.
136.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> The majority of vulnerabilities are in newly committed lines of code. This has been shown again and again That's fine, I wouldn't argue against that. It doesn't really change things, right? > From a marketing standpoi
137.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
It sounds like you don't want to say that you think vaccines are generally safe. So, I'm going to go ahead and call you an anti-vaxxer.
138.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
If people want exploitable syzkaller reports, following spender is free!
139.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
Oh, that. That's true, I didn't know Mythos found that one. I guess I will not comment further on it until there's a write up (edited out a bit more). > It is easy to turn this into a denial-of-service attack on the host,
140.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I'd love to see them point at a target that's not a decades old C/C++ codebase. Of the targets, only browsers are what should be considered hardened, and their biggest lever is sandboxing, which requires a lot of chained expl
141.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
[flagged]
142.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> There's a lot of definitions for both of those words. Sure. I don't think that that implies we have the right system currently or that we can't come up with good definitions. And again, "informed" is almost def
143.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
[flagged]
144.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
That doesn't support the claim that people who take peptides are anti-establishment.
145.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> because it is known to I thought that this was not yet substantiated in human trials? There's a plausible mechanism and, I think a mouse trial, right?
146.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> This means you can't say that oral vs injected is "equally effective" because you can't assert that BPC 157 is effective at all Is that true? It seems that you can say that they were equally effective without quanti
147.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
> And with very rare exceptions, it's as useful as watching someone workout when you want to gain muscle. Who cares? I never made broad claims about their efficacy, the author did. > Oral peptides are snake oil for the most part.
148.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I actually think "informed" is almost definitely defined already. Doctors already need to provide informed consent, so I think it would borrow from that. As for "egregious", I also suspect that this is understood already
149.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
I didn't say that you can't maintain muscle mass. I'm saying your performance will suffer.
150.
by staticassertion 5mo ago
That's not the exact quote lol you cut out the exact part I was referring to. > because unless a really substantial amount of engineering has gone into it, any given peptide is going get the same treatment from your digestive syste

More ›