IRQs are very low level and can't be traced by strace or procmon. both can easily log specific syscalls, e.g. strace -e. strace can't quite filter on ioctl, but apparently procmon can't trace ioctl at all: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9947933/how-to-log-the-d..., so strace is ahead there.
it skews the data in the right direction (from their point of view). if you saw it on twitter, and shared it with 100 people, then (from their perspective) they should spend more time advertising on twitter.
it feels like it should be easier to plug in a few times a week rather than drive to a gas station, stop the car, exit the car, insert card, enter pin/zip code, open gas cap, remove nozzle, insert nozzle, pump, wait for pumping, remove and return nozzle, close gas cap, take receipt (optional at some stations), return to car, start car, and leave. yes, you have to stop and start the car when plugging in at home, but you already have to do those things, whereas driving to a gas station is additional stopping and starting.
This is reminiscent of anti-scraping lawsuits: "you may only access LinkedIn using the LinkedIn web application; it is a violation to access it using curl". Ironically, Google's position in that regard is likely to bite them here, where someone else wants to use unconventional clients.
There are two major problems with this: partitions/device-mapper and backwards compatibility. First, partitions inherently overlap the parent block device. You would need to carefully track exactly which portions of the device are in use, or your solution is useless (it doesn't protect /dev/sda when /dev/sda1 is in use) or blocks the vast majority of use cases (/dev/sda2 cannot be used when /dev/sda1 is in use). The same applies for device-mapper, but worse. Secondly, the Linux kernel has a very strong backwards compatibility guarantee. Any change that would break valid (or even invalid) uses will be loudly rejected by Linus. With your idea, many disk management programs will be broken.
yes, and if a cop murders a civilian they are (supposed to be) liable, but innumerable news stories over the past... long time have shown that not to be the case far too often.
this is way too optimistic for the US criminal justice system. police and prosecutors regularly lie on warrant applications, and judges regularly grant the flimsiest of justifications for search and arrest warrants. there is no legal accountability whatsoever: the most that defense attorneys can usually do in the case of illegal search warrants is to have the illegally seized evidence excluded; there is no punishment for the state using its immense power to harass and intimidate individuals.
as implied in a cousin comment, I don't think this applies if they're currently incarcerated. at least at the federal level, the BOP should have records of who was sentenced with firearms or other violent sentencing modifiers in order to properly segregate them from non-violent offenders. that wouldn't work for the idea of purging their records, but for the OP argument, it ought to work reasonably well. for the rare cases where it doesn't, some burden could be put on the inmate to collect and submit their documents for approval, the same as if they were filing an appeal.
to clarify, since most people without personal experience in the US criminal system don't know: in the US, you can be, and usually are, sentenced based on crimes and/or facts you were not convicted or even charged for.
Your third solution basically reinvents Kerberos. I don't think Kerberos envisioned services making calls to each other though. In the 1980s, I think it was assumed that the client would contact each service separately and combine the results itself.
Actually, I think the intended usage in this situation is to click on the filename field, then press Save (or Enter/Return). Which is still terrible discoverability, but at least it's theoretically possible?
not according to the standard, but in practice yes, currently. there are arguments that it should be considered not for optimization reasons, but there is likely too much existing code relying on it to change behavior. (see related llvm, gcc bugs)
> I'm somewhat surprised nobody has packaged up an old version and wrapped it with "only run flash for these urls" and "don't update the ppapi plugin" type functionality. All the pieces seem to be available: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7084871?hl=en
This is likely to be of minimal use, since browsers will soon be removing Flash support entirely. Firefox in particular is carrying a significant amount of code to shim gtk2 in a gtk3 program.
this story does not sound accurate. if Malma truly had good finances before this, it could simply take out another loan at a different bank, who would presumably look at Malma's true finances and ignore this fake immediate payment. it is standard for major companies to renew their loans at different financial institutions at different rates, and a single call bankrupting a company would mean that the company was already in dire shape. this is consistent with https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/emcc/erm/facts..., which says that the bank claims that the company was managed poorly, and the management claims that it was caused by reduced Russian demand as well as increased interest rates.
it's a problem in the git model, since all the commit hashes would change. that means that all existing references become invalid, including emails, commit messages, and pull requests.
> -z? ! -z? one bracket? two brackets? quotes? no quotes? something about a semicolon and "then", right? where can you add newlines, again? oh yeah, it's not "end" like Ruby/Lua but "fi" right? what's "else if", again?
really, most of these questions have only one correct answer. [ ! is never correct, neither is ! [ -z or ! [ -n. one bracket in /bin/sh, two in bash. quote every variable expansion unless you have a very good reason not to. add new lines in sensible places. nobody (sensible) complains that you can't write
for
num
in
mylist
:
in Python, so don't write it in shell either.
the problem is there is so much cargo culting garbage. the same problem exists in "C/C++", where people write "int* buf = (int* )malloc(num*sizeof(int))" to be "compatible", or do gratuitous pointer aliasing with undefined behavior, despite the fact that any modern C implementation with any optimizations at all will inline small fixed-size memcpy.
it was in fact created using state-of-the-art windows gui frameworks. in 1995. and then never updated. is it really an improvement to have a win10 settings app that is all unified... except for most of the advanced settings and half of the basic settings which are only available in the control panel?
'The work which we describe as Studies in the Jewish Question, and which is variously described by antagonists as "the Jewish campaign," "the attack on the Jews," "the anti-Semitic pogrom," and so forth, needs no explanation to those who have followed it.' Henry Ford - http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7213/pg7213.txt
My guess is that it's less that there are now better ways to do it, and more that bots are increasingly sophisticated and the value of this signal has decreased over time, while the business costs (explaining to customers why this is not a GDPR violation) have increased.
I think a change of framing might be helpful here. Put in multiple bugs, and call it "training" instead. If you have multiple junior developers, have them all do it and compare results, reinforcing the idea of multiple reviews.