d110af5ccf

Well it shifts the target a bit. Instead of infecting the compiler you'd try to infect one of the core OS components (presumably in the kernel) and have it detect when those were being compiled and insert itself. Probably also infect any compilers you detect while you're at it as well.

This would probably be a bit more difficult to pull off. If someone did pull it off, fully reproducible builds ought to make it readily detectable at least in the absence of some extreme rootkit contortions.

> should have to talk through properly secured APIs

I don't follow what you mean by this. The API endpoints that a company provides ought to be secured properly. In practice they might or might not be but obviously they ought to be.

I don't see what that has to do with third party clients though. A third party client is stuck interacting with whatever API the company provides, however secure or insecure it might be.

Doesn't seem like a valid analogy to me. Access to an API isn't the same thing as intentionally accessing a paid service for free.

If someone writes an app that somehow bypasses needing a Netflix account and lets you stream video from them without paying them. That would be analogous. The intent would be to illegitimately access a paid service.

Using a third party client with a valid account to access API endpoints that respond to that account. I don't see a problem with that. I don't care what the ToS says. It should not be legal to disallow that in a ToS. It also shouldn't be legal to intentionally obfuscate your APIs.

Third party clients are okay and attempting to block them is morally wrong and should not be legal.

It isn't true for iOS devices, perhaps. I refuse to run an OS that supports such nonsense. Right now a custom Android rom is sufficient. In the future I expect I'll be moving to one of the Linux distros once they have better support for mobile.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However I can't resist shilling self hosted alternatives here.

> There's no reason I should have to be subjected to untold tracking, snooping and advertising functionality to be able to post or look at photos and comment on them.

Stand up your own PixelFed instance for your family and friends today!

Yes, people can and will write malicious programs. Those will sometimes take the form of third party clients for a service. That is not and will never be a valid argument against them being allowed to exist. Monopolies are not ok. Abusive behavior by the dominant market players isn't ok.

The vast majority of file formats do not do such things. Such a concern is (typically) out of scope for that layer.

Even most data transmission components don't use forward correcting codes. They typically just have error detection.

Those are just versions of the standard. What people would be comparing is the performance of particular implementations. It's entirely possible that a less mature implementation would have problems.

I live in a similar climate and have never once had this problem in the winter. Something is wrong if this is happening to you.

I don't think it's the temperature delta in this case, at least not between the room and outside. I suspect internal equilibration of the unit when power cycled and also energy transfer design capacity on the indoor side of the unit are to blame.

> Most of the consumer advice is very low level - this Heat Geeks site seems better that most, but it still lacks enough detail for me to get into the numbers

You'll probably want an undergraduate physical chemistry textbook for this.

It looks like there are some ffmpeg forks that include patches supporting AC-4 but they haven't been merged upstream yet. https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/8349

Not that it changes anything. Proprietary formats have no place in such government specifications. But possibly a relevant ffmpeg build could help you do what you wanted to.

Yes, in the US there is quite a bit of precedent for this. See for example common carriers.

> I suppose there's an argument that twitter etc are effectively "common carriers" ... I'm not sure I buy it though.

On one side of the spectrum we have your private home. Obviously your having the ability to infringe on my freedom to speak in that very specific and limited venue doesn't seem to lead to any great societal ills.

On the other side of the spectrum we have a government owned public square. I think it's clear enough that any regulation of speech there including informal coercion not to speak is quite likely to lead to significant political and social problems. Limitations on government power mitigate a lot of this but certainly not all of it.

And then we have large corporate owned properties, both online and in the physical world, where the public is more or less permitted to gather but the regular protections don't apply. Presumably the problems caused by regulating speech are related to scale. So at what point should regulation apply?

The concept of a common carrier isn't new. Twitter hosts prominent politicians from multiple large countries. It seems obvious to me that they crossed that line some point even if I don't know precisely where it lies.

I doubt they were objecting to the speech itself as much as the system that had apparently been set up to facilitate it. Or in other words, you say "university policies produce punishment or non-punishment" and it seems to me it was precisely those policies that they were objecting to.

I don't believe Firefox has announced a discontinuation date for V2. If your browser vendor breaks your stuff perhaps you should consider switching browsers ...

The problem is that the Wayland fans have a tendency (at least I feel) to significantly misrepresent things in their favor. Statements like "oh that's actually more efficient on Wayland". No, Wayland is incapable of the sorts of optimizations X can do by design. It is only more efficient if the X app is doing things in a specific way that doesn't take advantage of huge parts of the X protocol. Granted, most modern apps do exactly that at this point. That doesn't make such statements any less of a misrepresentation though.

A much more reasonable claim would be that the network transparency afforded by the X protocol adds significant complexity which is no longer utilized by the majority of mainstream apps today. As such there's a reasonable case for dropping all that complexity from the core system and leaving it to peripheral libraries to handle on a case by case basis for the apps that want to make use of it.

And the idea of lossy compression while using an image editing program being a desirable thing (as suggested elsewhere in this comment chain) is laughable. It's already bad enough reading text that's gone through lossy compression. I would never want compression artifacts while manipulating an image.

My impression of Wayland so far is that I like the technicals but absolutely detest the people I encounter pushing it as a solution (it's quite similar to Rust in that regard I suppose). They would probably meet less resistance if they took more care not to misrepresent the overall state of things. I'll leave the link to KDE Wayland "showstoppers" for reference. Certainly that list is far shorter today than it used to be and many (not all) of the items are now solely on KDE's end. Nonetheless, fanboys have been claiming that Wayland is "production ready" the entire time. https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Wayland_Showstoppers

I'll switch to Wayland once it "just works" out of the box in terms of app integration on stable distributions including things like screen capture, fractional scaling factors, color management, all the stuff that works on X.

> You could for example, on every chip put in essentially a public private key pair, which authenticates it and allows it to work

intel SGX already involves a per-chip keypair with intel as the root of trust. it just isn't required to use the rest of the chip

last I checked that's not what's at issue. they can't produce equivalent chips themselves and rely on them for various physics simulations that back weapons research

Why can't we have both? L4 cache anyone?

> At least then there will be less lingering suspicion that he was pressured into it for being a cost point.

How? Sure, the doctor probably didn't actively recommend it. But medical costs could very well be a significant factor in such an action.

I'd prefer a much smaller range but being able to request as many as I want via DHCP (or equivalent mechanism). That way it wouldn't be contiguous so I wouldn't feel as much of a need to use a VPN for privacy. As it is, what's the point of handing me an entire /48 if I just end up forcing most of my traffic through a single IPv4 address with a VPN for most of my web browsing anyway?

Although to be fair even with non-contiguous address space I might still want a VPN since ISPs in the US are allowed to sell your browsing history.

Also if I'm hosting a public facing service at home I'm going to proxy it via wireguard through a VPS I rent for obvious security reasons. I don't actually want public facing services directly exposed from my home network and I have to question the sanity of anyone who says they do.

And I've always disabled webrtc for obvious privacy (ie network fingerprinting) reasons. What's so great about getting rid of NAT again?

You have to be careful about that, not everyone hands out /64. They can be as small as /128 and I've seen some providers give out as large as /48.

> I say that people with chronic porn addictions have a hard time forming relationships

Well originally you used wording that would imply a significant subset of the population. But even ignoring that it remains a completely baseless claim. How are you eliminating all of the other potential explanations that exist? And how are you arriving at the conclusion that the porn addiction is the cause of the problem as opposed to one of the effects?

> Where did I say that it's harder to form relationships today than it was in the past?

> I firmly believe that easy access porn is one of the worst things happening to the young men and women today.

"one of the worst things happening" is clear enough on its own. "young men and women" refers to the population at large. "today" is in contrast to historically

> I (23) know many men around my age who suffer from chronic porn addictions to the point that it severely impacts their ability for form real relationships

"many men" is not describing a rare phenomenon. "to the point that it severely impacts" is a clear attribution of cause and effect.

> median age of first exposure is getting lower and lower

Obvious meaning in context: things are getting worse over time.

> it exposes your implicit biases more than it does anything about myself

No, you are resorting to disingenuous semantic games because I pointed out the inconsistencies in what you wrote. Namely that you have provided absolutely no evidence for the things you are claiming and I see no obvious reason that they should be the case.

Yes, this is precisely my point. I see no obvious reason to believe the claims that were being made and no evidence for them is provided. I'm not saying "that's not the case" I'm saying "you couldn't possibly know that".

> I don't think there's a big difference between a social conservative (who typically want to use government force to restrict access to "bad things") and someone who sides with liberty and tolerance but would advise friends and family not to do "bad thing."

The socially conservative part is baselessly attributing various ills to porn. Admittedly anyone can commit such an error in logical reasoning but (in my personal experience) this particular one exhibits a very high correlation with being socially conservative.

You claim to be extremely liberal in your social views but then in the next breath make the assumptions that difficulty forming relationships today is significantly greater than in the past and further that this fact is due to effects that are caused (ultimately) by viewing porn. Those are both very socially conservative viewpoints and I have yet to find scientific data (or anything else I'd consider even remotely reliable) that back either of them up, particularly the second one.

If I were to accept (purely hypothetically) that it is significantly more difficult for many people to form relationships today then how do you suppose to show that this change is due to porn instead of, say, the prevalence of dating apps such as Tinder? Or any number of other factors including things like job stability, housing prices (and thus perceived security of living situation), and where people choose to spend their free time (for example going out on the town in the past versus perhaps doomscrolling twitter and watching netflix).

The issue being that Twitter actually did (afaik) make various representations about bots, spam, paid actors, etc and the validity of those representations was later called into question. So the analogy as originally proposed at the top of this thread is a misrepresentation.

> I still can painlessly kill them and redeploy with the same name because I have Ansible or SaltStack code to do so

those don't sound like pets to me ...

Unique character has nothing to do with it. They may have names but they're still livestock - raised en masse to be sold. Pets don't just have names, they're akin to family members. Livestock don't hang out on the couch with you while you watch TV.

Production systems are very much like livestock - spun up to serve a purpose. Getting overly attached as you might with a personal pet system is probably a mistake that will reduce your efficiency.

> a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38

That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us.

> I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred.

This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.