bennofs

It can only sync data between devices that are operating of course. But if you have three devices A,B,C then it can also sync A-B and later sync B-C, or sync A-C directly if both are running.

I have seen this technique being used to implement syscalls for processes running on intel SGX [0]. In that cases, it makes even more sense because exiting SGX, making a syscall and then reentering SGX is a lot of overhead for a single syscall, while writing to shared memory is doable without exiting the SGX environment.

[0]: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/osdi16/osdi16...

Does that list only include binary-to-llvm lifters, since it is missing at least valgrind (vex) and BAP (bapil) otherwise?

Wikidata has a SPARQL API though

One way to deal with them: if you have some software package you only want to build as quick as possible and don't want to bother with any nix stuff, spawn an Ubuntu (or any other distro if the package has instructions for a certain distro) docker container and build the app within that. (Or use steam-run from NixOS which is basically an Ubuntu container)

This also has the advantage that you can use the exact same distribution that the instructions for said package mention. (If the thing you want to compile has instructions for Ubuntu 16.04 no problem just use the docker image for that)

For anything that you want to use on a regular basis, creating a nix package is pretty easy most of the time. If you only want to build a newer version of a package directly from git, you can even copy the package for the stable version and just overwrite the src in many cases.

Regarding software that works on NixOS but not on other distros I think it's usually the other way around: by testing your software on NixOS you uncover issues that would have made your software less portable (hidden dependencies, hardcoded path assumptions, ...)

The main selling point of tailwind for me is that it improves iteration time by grouping the CSS with the HTML: I don't need to switch files anymore and also more importantly don't need to come up with ids and selectors. It reduces the level of indirection.

Of course you can say now I mixed style with HTML but if you never intend to change style separately from HTML then why introduce the mental overhead of indirection?

Nice project. I considered doing something similar but in Android at least some apps use certificate pinning and thus mitmproxy would break them. How does this work in ios?

What would you use this for? If it runs some service via wifi, the sd-card size isn't necessary and you can geht cheaper boards with more features.

Small size is needed if you want to embed this into something but for that use case it lacks easy access to io ports and other peripherals.

An important difference in my mind is between designing a web application vs designing a web document.

In the document case, it is possible to mostly keep the document semantic and apply styling via CSS. It matches the content/style separation well.

For web applications, I really like tailwind-like approaches, for multiple reasons:

* changing the style globally is probably hard anyway without adapting the HTML as well (as in the app case, often lots of other things depend on margins etc for example and you have a lot less uniformity/more special cases than in the document case)

* because there is less uniformity, the reuse aspect of the traditional content/presentation split is greatly reduced anyway

* web apps often use component based frameworks already, so you still get reusable components

The big difference between this and "background: #333" is that in the later case it could also be "background: #334" or "background: #435". The functional framework approach forces a minimal amount of consistency.

How does the hole punching work? Is there a high level overview of the difference between this implementation and textbook Kademlia?

I am not sure in which part of the code to look for this (is the hole punching part of the dht package?) so any pointers are appreciated

mailbox.org and posteo.de are both 1€ per month. I haven't used either though.

Having a network-connected device that you own be always available may not be such a huge problem. Many home's use a router that is always connected: this router could also serve as IPFS content hoster!

I view IPFS as a better distribution network, not a better host - in contrast to current's internet structure, if many people request the same content from me, they might only need to contact my server once and then share it between them thus reducing overall load.

So the point of IPFS is not to store content for eternity, but to provide efficient distribution of content.

I feel like recent windows versions aren't that stable either though. There are times (for example one particular Bluetooth speaker) where I reboot into Linux to get things working... Pair that with the horror that is Windows update and I am not sure if Windows is less pain for the average user.

But there are definitely things were Linux is hit or miss (ime):

- video drivers (integrated graphics work well for me) - integrated SD card readers

But if you don't have too fancy hardware requirements I think Linux can be OK.

Yes but you can detect that. The enclave can sign a statement that you could verify with a public key for that enclave. So if you replace the hardware there is no way to do that anymore as you cannot extract the private key from the original enclave.

Wasn't the lock in the article kind of async? From my understanding, the problem was not the wait time on the lock alone, but that the lock is not fair: so even if you asynchrounously locked, someone else (in this case the WMI scan) can get the lock everytime before you get it so you are blocked a long time (you cannot continue with this particular operation until you get the lock, even in the async case).

What's special about Tor Browser Bundle? What would I need to configure to use it with another browser?

Not if you need to communicate with other user space services, such as:

* systray icons/application indicators

* newer fontconfig versions support new config options which results in fonts being broken for apps that use older versions

* I think there is some issue around glibc locales handling if you use a different glibc

* systemd/logind/... DBus apis

Those were just some external interfaces that came to my mind. I'm sure there are many more.

I would argue that this was not "simple". For me, simple means that it is easy to understand what is going on. If your using an ORM wrong, then you're not understanding what is going on under the hood so it is not simple.

If you really write simple code, you should also be aware of the shortcomings of the simple approach.

With the noweb syntax, I think you can just write:

<<imports>>

code you want to show

and then later define what `imports` should be.

You could get a long life expectancy but with increasing pain as you get older. It would be a long live but not healthy. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_of_morbidity

But the payoff from breaking into Google is much larger than stealing your computer. One of those provides mass access to data and the other only involves data about a few persons. So comparing that is not really valid.

They wouldn't store whois data of course, but the domain needs to be stored at it can then be used to look it up.

I think mailbox.org supports custom domains and is similar in other respects.

The FAQ (https://posteo.de/en/site/faq) says the do it because a domain has personay identifying information in WHOIS and they would need to store it.

I think for .de domains, you are required to have your personal address in WHOIS if you are not a company.

Then you must assume one of:

* No one can get access to Google's data * Those who can get access cannot harm you

In addition to trusting google not to be evil. What are your assumptions that lead you to that conclusion?

Or are you assuming that no matter who has access to your data, there is no one could ever do any harm to you with that data? (That's the 'I have nothing to hide' argument)

What's the real reason they don't allow custom domains in your opinion? Why do you say they are lying?

The thing that r2 is lacking is a good decompiler. IDAs decompiler really helps a lot if you are reversing a big binary with many structs.

Unfortunatly, copperhead only supports a tiny number of devices: Pixel, Pixel XL, Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P (+hikey as preview)

Why is a stack machine bad for security? The JVM also had sandboxed execution as a goal and also uses a stack machine. But perhaps the stack machine was choosen because it tends to produce smaller binaries (which is important for things you send over the net) and not for security reasons?

Only if it uses proof of work.