that's the point at which you say (reasonably accurately) that the 364 byte thing is written in machine code. it is small enough to manually translate between the binary and asm
181 karma · joined June 29, 2011
* Full disclosure happening in less than 2 weeks (as agreed with devs).
* Still no working fix.
There are conceivable scenarios where GD doing something (or not doing something) could result in Certainly search no longer validating on some subset of older browsers/clients, but they're quite obscure and unlikely. If you include those scenarios as Certainly having a dependency on GoDaddy, I feel like you would also have to say that Certainly depends on their domain name registrar to not give away their domain out from under them.
> This government surveillance has had a measurable chilling effect on Wikipedia users, with research documenting a drop in traffic to Wikipedia articles on sensitive topics, following public revelations about the NSA’s mass surveillance in 2013.
That includes Debian, so probably also Ubuntu. Dunno about Red Hat but it's probably the same.
This article seems like a pretty strong argument in the opposite direction: about a tape format which is effectively unreadable without significant heroics (to the extent that a documentary was made about trying to play one of these tapes.)
The format admittedly wasn't exactly successful, and I imagine more common formats would have better luck finding usable hardware. But even then, the tape still degrades.
If I really needed something to last a Very Long Time, I'd print it in highly redundant QR codes on lots of paper, and then also print the specs for QR codes and whatever other encodings were necessary.
With a 30px record size, it's only ~600k records, which really doesn't seem that unreasonable to me
During the #deletefacebook movement, Facebook didn't ban links to or discussion of competitors.
The title gave me a reasonably decent idea of what to expect, and the article delivered.
The point is that the only way browsers have to influence a CA or the industry is the threat to eventually distrust. If they can't threaten that to government-stamped CAs, then those CAs no longer even have an incentive to operate responsibly, and, as we know from the many, many incidents, they almost certainly won't.
That gives control over the root stores for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. (And the approximation of the Mozilla store used by most Linux distros, the root stores on macOS/iOS/etc, and the root store on Windows.)
I'm not aware of any other browsers worth considering.
Yes. That's what happened. (I'm not sure if the 1E6 phones claim is accurate, but it was a non-trivial chunk of people near MA).
The app was intentionally subtle, in that it had no application icon, which would presumably make it very difficult for user to disable contract tracing if they had enabled it. If you managed to uninstall the app, it would get reinstalled silently again.
2. The lawsuit alleges that there was no legal requirement or court order. Even if there had been, the lawsuit argues that the conduct would still have violated federal and state law and constitutions.
It is really pretty shitty, and, IANAL, probably is/was illegal, with the caveats that (a) I'm not sure whether Massachusetts or Google or both should be considered responsible; and (b) they might try to argue that a user's acceptance of Google's ToS and privacy policy constitutes permission.
Reads and writes from actual, physical, hardware memory might block, depending on how you define "block", in the sense that some reads may miss CPU cache. But once you get to that point, you could argue that every branch might block if the branch misprediction causes a pipeline stall. This is not a useful definition of "block".
The thing is, most programs are almost never low-level enough to be dealing with memory in that sense: they read and write virtual memory. And virtual memory can block for any number of reasons, including some pretty non-obvious ones like. For example:
- the system is under memory pressure and that page is no longer in RAM because it got written to a swap file
- the system is under memory pressure and that page is no longer in RAM because it was a read-only mapping from a file and could be purged
-- e.g. it's part of your executable's code
- this is your first access to a page of anonymous virtual memory and the kernel hadn't needed to allocate a physical page until now
- you're in a VM and the VMM can do whatever it wants
- the page is COW from another process
from TFA
Still cheap: you only need to preempt the threads which are actively running user code. If a coroutine is ready to run, but not actually running, you don't have to do anything with it (as long as you check for safepoints before entering user code.) That means your safepoints cost is `O(os threads currently running user code)` which in most runtimes is `O(num cores)`
I think it only stopped when the storage services got to the "deprecated, and we're not bothering to do a failover because dependent teams who care should just use something else, because this one is being shut down any year now". (I don't agree with that decision, obviously ;) but I do have sympathy for the team stuck running a condemned service. Sigh.)
After stuff was migrated to the new storage service (probably somewhere in the 2017-2019 range but I have no idea when), I have no idea how DR/failover worked.
The point is that we made it easier. By the time I left, things were basically just multi-region by default. (To be sure, there were still sharp edges. Services which needed to store data (like, databases) were a nightmare to manage. Services which needed to be in the same region specific instances of other services, e.g. something which wanted to be running in the same region as wherever the master shard of its database was running, were another nasty case.)
The point was that every services was expected to be multi-region, which was enforced by regular fire drills, and if you didn't have a pretty darn good story about why regular announced downtime was fine, people would be asking serious questions.
And anything external going down for more than a minute or two (e.g. for a failover) would be inexcusable. Especially for something like a bloody login page.
Even this little tidbit is a bit of a wtf for me. Why do they consider it ok to have anything hosted in a single region?
At a different (unnamed) FAANG, we considered it unacceptable to have anything depend on a single region. Even the dinky little volunteer-run thing which ran https://internal.site.example/~someEngineer was expected to be multi-region, and was, because there was enough infrastructure for making things multi-region that it was usually pretty easy.