opello

> So whoever is writing their email is mixing these two up, but you're reading the policy itself and it is fairly clear-cut what it means for you, right?

This (rhetorical?) question seems to suggest that you have a level of understanding or have done the analysis required to come to such a meaning. It seems to me that it would be most beneficial if you simply shared that analysis.

To me, seeing this here for the first time, it is not at all obvious what the terms mean for someone seeking a donation, because of the past behavioral detail of WireGuard going through something similar. The terms you quote seem to me to state that since there is a tax exempt donation involved, the prohibition on routing to a non-Google Play billing workflow should not be in effect.

> Note: This is a community fork of adevinta/maiao. The original maintainers are no longer at Adevinta and the upstream repository is no longer actively maintained. This fork continues development under runetes/maiao.

Along this particular axis I prefer to think of intelligence is to wise as smart is to knowledgeable. It may be simply wordsmithing but it provokes empathy.

Moving to sockets adds risk of the socket failing too. But this particular instance of not using an SOIC-8, for which test clips are readily available, seems pretty unfriendly.

I imagine there's a way to program the flash from a header or connector, or maybe it was programmed before being assembled onto the PCB.

While the author didn't go this route, I've wondered for a while if the angled style WSON-8 clips worked:

https://www.printables.com/model/89693-wson-8-program-clips

This is nicely documented but seems to be missing the `git reset HEAD^` when rebase drops you into editing the marked commit.

Not to mention pre-trial detainment becoming more broadly used, and bail being an effective poor tax.

It seems strangely polarizing to refer to the "old and cumbersome" interactive rebase approach in contrast to "the right approach" using `git history` which is a brand new, experimental feature as of Git 2.54 from April 20, 2026, a few months ago.

I have split a lot of work with interactive rebasing. I'm excited to try `git history split` and to have learned about it here. But the stylistic flourish makes it seem like it's been a feature for years that people just haven't moved to instead of being something shiny and new to be excited about trying.

Looks like it's open access:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3719027.3765062

It looks like PostgreSQL is optional and SQLite is the default.

https://github.com/UNITRONIX/BetterDesk#prerequisites

Subtly normalizing the invasive data collection practice.

Or maybe not so subtly.

For me it failed to load (with the same console.log messages as above) in a multi-account container tab, and crashed Firefox in a Private Browsing window.

I miss the squad gameplay of Battlefield 2 too. It hasn't been replicated since, in my opinion, and subsequent Battlefield titles changed the classes and made the available loadout options too flexible to require specialized play.

But that redirect (intentionally or not) doesn't include the fragment part of the URL, so it might not have satisfied the other poster's intent.

Do it for the exposure! Artists of many stripes have had to combat that for ages.

Isn't the checkers level move to make 539 and call it a day? Sure, it's no longer about electors but ... checkers.

... and to think I thought I was being clever. I see this has been suggested already.

I always thought this was an implicit request to forgive obvious typos and autocorrect mistakes. Sent from a mobile device (iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Blackberry, Windows Phone, etc.) with a tiny keyboard and in a setting in which proofreading may not be as rigorous as normal.

It seems like it would be most reasonable to consider porcelain vs. plumbing command details in deciding if something is logically distinct to Git. git-commit has --message and --trailer options, git-commit-tree has a --message option. I take that as trailer is a convenience option to provide a consistent way to append those details to the commit message. But that doesn't mean it's not part of the commit message, nor that the user shouldn't see it while reviewing the commit message.

I did dig into this a bit more the other day and learned that the "main RF can" is the cesium oscillator module. The history there was pretty interesting! The early ones I found were the Symmetricom Quantum SA.45s[1,2] which included a pretty entertaining thread here[3]. There were several levels of quality and function in the family of products which have been discontinued in favor of the MAC-SA55[4], and I wish I could find where I saw that recommendation... It's a rubidium, instead of cesium oscillator, not that I know enough about these things to concluded one should be better than the other but my impression was cesium was higher precision.

[1] https://www.gpsworld.com/wirelesstimingnewssymmetricom-offer...

[2] https://www.si.edu/object/symmetricom-chip-scale-atomic-cloc...

[3] https://febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts_lists.febo.com/2021-Jan...

[4] https://www.microchip.com/en-us/product/mac-sa55

I do get that, this era of automation is too responsive to not go public to provoke action. I think I might just be wistful of an era in which the alternate path might have made a difference. Sorry to pile on.

I realize you've been championing this idea in the thread, and I admire it because I also recognize the misdirected blame. Please understand I do not harbor "blame" for the researchers.

> Their job is to bring information to light, not to manage downstreams.

The researchers are also members of a community in which more harm than is necessary may be dealt by their actions. Nuance must exist in evaluating "reasonable" and "responsible" in the context of actions.

> Should a security researcher that identifies a vulnerability in electron.js need to identify _every_ possible project using electron.js to communicate with them the vulnerability exists? No. That's absurd.

But this is a false comparison, right? The scope of "Linux distributions" and "electron apps" are orders of magnitude different. If the reporter spot checked one or two of the most popular distributions to see if fixes had been adopted, that seems like an extra level of nice diligence before publicizing the details.

It doesn't seem "insane" as much as "not the most efficient path" as has already been well argued. But it also doesn't seem unreasonable to think in a project of the scope of the Linux kernel, with the potential impact of fairly effective(?) privilege escalation, some extra consideration is reasonable--certainly not "insane" at the very least?

It strikes me as strange that the article links to [1] which appears to be the same board, absent the "Viavi" logo on the main RF can, as the Microchip product you linked. I couldn't tell with a brief look if the Viavi product is offering something like software, configuration, tuning, etc. on top of GPS-2700 product.

The photo of the device on the article says "Jackson Labs" which seems to have been the previous name of "Viavi Solutions" and a review video [2] mentioned using Symmetricom atomic clock modules, which was acquired first by Microsemi (2013) and subsequently Microchip (2018)[3].

[1] https://www.viavisolutions.com/en-us/products/chip-scale-ato...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CogN630jUSs

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetricom

> I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things.

If this is what you mean to identify as claiming FastCGI and HTTP are generally interchangeable, and are rising to correct, I'll also offer that "agree with the article" and "these things" narrow the context to "for reverse proxy communication" and do not suggest the broader meaning you've interpreted.

You didn't though. You may have intended to?

The article points out that HTTP and FastCGI are both options for reverse proxies to communicate to the downstream server. I didn't find a reference to them being interchangeable outside of that context. If there is or was one please quote it.

While not formally reviewing code like this, I read a lot of it for fun. When it's clear and understandable, it's more educational and enjoyable. If the PoC code can also serve as a means of communication, that seems like an extra win.

It seems like "jargon" fits the need for a way to label the more specific meaning intended, like "property from objected oriented programming jargon." I think programmers might differ without the more specific description on if OOP, or say, the abstract algebra meaning, of property would be intended, since both seem relevant to different contexts of programming.

I think it's a good introduction to quantization generally and specifically in how it applies to reducing LLMs. But I also think it should say something about LLMs or "AI" in the title (as even the article is tagged AI on the author's site) because despite that being an easy assumption to make given the zeitgeist, including the detail would be more clear.

I assume, at least for me, it's because I typed them in many, many more times.

Thanks, it wasn't out of doubt that I asked, but it seemed having a reference to point at would help resolve the contention. The Docker blog post covered a lot more detail, even about WSL2, which was really informative and I hadn't seen.

I wonder exactly how much work "container" is doing in that Microsoft blog post's description, because it doesn't seem like it's the same kind of environment as a runc or containerd container?

I also wasn't quite sure how much detail to infer from the behavior of vmmemWSL or vmcompute.exe, because my casual understanding is that there's some adaptation layer that handles mapping Linux calls to Windows calls. It seems reasonable to allow for process mapping or accounting shenanigans for any number of good reasons.