Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Same in Python, Rust, Haskell and probably many others.
But apparently JS does work that way, that is its filter
always iterates over everything and returns a new array and not some iterator object.
Hasn’t Google already made advances through its Alpha Geometry AI?? Admittedly, that’s a geometry setting which may be easier to code than other parts of Math and there isn’t yet a clear indication AI will ever be able to reach a certain level of creativity that the human mind has, but at the same time it might get there by sheer volume of attempts.
Wanted to focus a bit on this. The thing with AlphaGeometry and AlphaProof is that they really treat doing math as a game, not unlike chess. For example, AlphaGeometry has a basic set of rules, it can apply them and it knows when it is done. And when it is done, you can be 100% sure that the solution is correct, because the rules of the game are known; the 28/42 score reported in the article is really four perfect scores and three zeros. Those systems do use LLMs, but they really are only there to suggest to the system what to try doing next. There is a very enlightening picture in the AlphaGeometry paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06747-5#Fig1
You can automatically verify correctness of code the same way. For example Lean, the language AlphaProof uses internally, can be used for general programming. In general, we call similar programming techniques formal methods. But most people don’t do this, since this is more time-consuming than normal programming, and in many cases we don’t even know how to define the goal of our code (how to define correct rendering in a game?). So this is only really done when the correctness of the program is critical, like famously they verified the code of the automatic metro in Paris this way. And so most people don’t try to make programming AI work this way.
It could also be this: Cheang, R. T., Skjevling, M., Blakemore, A. I., Kumari, V., & Puzzo, I. (2024). Do you feel me? Autism, empathic accuracy and the double empathy problem. Autism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241252320
It seems OP wanted to pass the file name to -k
, but this parameter takes the password itself and not a filename:
-k password
The password to derive the key from. This is for compatibility with previous versions of OpenSSL. Superseded by the -pass argument.
So, as I understand, the password would be not the first line of /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
, but the string /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
itself. It seems that -kfile /etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
or -pass file:/etc/ssl/private/etcBackup.key
is what OP wanted to use.
That command will produce a list of (dynamic) libraries that are being used by that helper. It will look somewhat like this (this is copied from my Arch instalation):
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007edb2f060000)
libcurl.so.4 => /usr/lib/libcurl.so.4 (0x00007edb2ee6f000)
libpcre2-8.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpcre2-8.so.0 (0x00007edb2edd1000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x00007edb2edb8000)
libc.so.6 => /usr/lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007edb2ebcc000)
libnghttp3.so.9 => /usr/lib/libnghttp3.so.9 (0x00007edb2eba9000)
libnghttp2.so.14 => /usr/lib/libnghttp2.so.14 (0x00007edb2eb7f000)
libidn2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libidn2.so.0 (0x00007edb2eb5b000)
libssh2.so.1 => /usr/lib/libssh2.so.1 (0x00007edb2eb12000)
libpsl.so.5 => /usr/lib/libpsl.so.5 (0x00007edb2eafe000)
libssl.so.3 => /usr/lib/libssl.so.3 (0x00007edb2ea24000)
libcrypto.so.3 => /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.3 (0x00007edb2e400000)
libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /usr/lib/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x00007edb2e9d0000)
libzstd.so.1 => /usr/lib/libzstd.so.1 (0x00007edb2e8ef000)
libbrotlidec.so.1 => /usr/lib/libbrotlidec.so.1 (0x00007edb2e8e0000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 => /usr/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007edb2f062000)
libunistring.so.5 => /usr/lib/libunistring.so.5 (0x00007edb2e250000)
libkrb5.so.3 => /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 (0x00007edb2e178000)
libk5crypto.so.3 => /usr/lib/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x00007edb2e14a000)
libcom_err.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0x00007edb2e8d8000)
libkrb5support.so.0 => /usr/lib/libkrb5support.so.0 (0x00007edb2e13c000)
libkeyutils.so.1 => /usr/lib/libkeyutils.so.1 (0x00007edb2e8d1000)
libresolv.so.2 => /usr/lib/libresolv.so.2 (0x00007edb2e12a000)
libbrotlicommon.so.1 => /usr/lib/libbrotlicommon.so.1 (0x00007edb2e107000)
It might be a good idea actually to try running this both when it works and when it doesn’t, maybe there is some difference?
ldd /usr/lib/git-core/git-remote-https
?
I like btdu which is essentially ncdu, but works in a way that is useful even if advanced btrfs features (CoW, compression etc.) are used.
I am afraid you are still a bit misled; WireGuard is exactly what they use for the demo video. In general the underlying protocol does not matter, since the vulnerability is about telling the system to direct the packages to the attacker, completely bypassing the VPN.
I really need to try out Mercury one day. When we did a project in Prolog at uni, it felt cool, but also incredibly dynamic in a bad way. There were a few times when we misspelled some clause, which normally would be an error, but in our case it just meant falsehood. We then spent waaay to much time searching for these. I can’t help but think that Mercury would be as fun as Prolog, but less annoying.
I actually use from time to time the Bower email client, which is written in Mercury.
My understanding is that all issues are patched in the mentioned releases, the config flag is not needed for that.
The config flag has been added because supporting clients with different endianness is undertested and most people will never use it. So if it is going to generate vulnerabilities, it makes sense to be able to disable it easily, and to disable it by default on next major release. Indeed XWayland had it disabled by default already, so only the fourth issue (ProcRenderAddGlyphs
) is relevant there if that default is not changed.
Regarding /etc/skel
being an empty directory, note that it is one of the few places outside /home
where you can actually expect hidden files :) On my Arch it contains Bash dotfiles, for example.
Have you tried etckeeper? I haven’t, but it’s supposed to be an improvement over just using git in this usecase.
Phoenotopia: Awakening – an amazing metroidvania-related game. Relatively more popular than the other games I list, but is honestly one of my favorite games of all time.
Vision: Soft Reset – a metroidvania, but you can travel backwards and forwards in time and this really matters for gameplay.
Bombe – Minesweeper, but instead of solving the puzzles manually, you create rules (“if there is a cell with the number N and there are N empty cells around it, mark them all as mines”) which the game applies automatically.
SOLAS 128 – a puzzle game where you redirect signals in a huge machine, just a great experience if you like puzzle games.
The bootloader is stored unencrypted on your disk. Therefore it is trivial to modify, the other person just needs to power down your PC, take the hard drive out, mount it on their own PC and modify stuff. This is the Evil Maid attack the other person talked about.
I am no cryptographer, but I understand that in the SSH protocol, the keys are only used for signing anyway: that is, the user is authenticated by saying “I want to authenticate with some key, and here’s some data signed by this key”, and this is completely separate to encryption. It also seems that GitHub encourages using separate keys for commit signing and general SSH access, which might alleviate some of the ickyness.
You are really not wrong though, I feel like people only started using SSH for this because it kinda worked and they already have been familiar with it.
Just wanted to say that you actually can sign git commits using SSH keys! :) It’s nowhere close to being as flexible as what you suggest, but it’s also not GPG, so there’s that.
Edit: Actually, I thought about it, and I don’t think clang’s behavior is wrong in the examples he cites. Basically, you’re using an uninitialized variable, and choosing to use compiler settings which make that legal, and the compiler is saying “Okay, you didn’t give me a value for this variable, so I’m just going to pick one that’s convenient for me and do my optimizations according to the value I picked.” Is that the best thing for it to do? Maybe not; it certainly violates the principle of least surprise. But, it’s hard for me to say it’s the compiler’s fault that you constructed a program that does something surprising when uninitialized variables you’re using happen to have certain values.
You got it correct in this edit. But the important part is that gcc will also do this, and they both are kinda expected to do so. The article cites some standard committee discussions: somebody suggested ensuring that signed integer overflow in C++20 will not UB, and the committee decided against it. Also, somebody suggested not allowing to optimize out the infinite loops like 13 years ago, and then the committee decided that it should be allowed. Therefore, these optimisations are clearly seen as features.
And these are not theoretical issues by any means, there has been this vulnerability in the kernel for instance: https://lwn.net/Articles/342330/ which happened because the compiler just removed a null pointer check.
You might also like https://github.com/nvim-neorg/neorg which is not meant to be compatible with Emacs org-mode, but rather something new that’s built around similar ideas but for Neovim. Hadn’t used it myself though, only heard about it.
It seems that I can’t see the link from 0.18.3 instances somehow. Maybe one of these will work: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/18347 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/18347 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/18347
IANAL nor intelligent, but after skimming the text of the directive I felt like the definition of damage is very limited. In particular, if I understand correctly:
would not be covered by this directive, this directive is only about a human being hurt in some way,
would be covered in case of “your game installs a kernel-level anticheat and the anticheat breaks PCs”, but not in the case of “you uploaded an upgrade to a firmware of the washing machine you produced and it bricked the machines”; the directive is not about a product breaking, but about the product breaking your health, other property or data,
is basically the exact case this directive covers.