Hey I found the person who's the reason there's a fully equipped contingent of the National Guard in every major city.
3,017 karma · joined November 26, 2014
The OpenBSD folks came to the exact opposite conclusion after auditing the code:
"In a nutshell, This was a very effective exploit mitigation technique countermeasure. It could not have been designed better to make an attack like heartbleed both hard to detect and have dire consequences. OpenBSD's memory allocator, Valgrind, and Coverity do not notice the memory issues."
https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan14-libressl/mgp00007.ht...
Just a single damning slide among many here: https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan14-libressl/
More here: https://www.libressl.org/papers.html
Further, known exploits like the one crafted for XZ take advantage of plausible deniability and trust in contributors at every opportunity. Meaning that even if you wanted to disclaim malice, you cannot do so effectively.
and when asked to explain you responded with: "Didn't they say it already?"
Which any reader can verify they have not at the time of 1:42pm EST Oct 23 2026.
And yet, due to the shape Apple chose, it did not.
"You're feeling it wrong" from the same folks as "you're holding it wrong". Yeesh.
Lowest cost of production is what that formfactor provides.
Palm's devices, by contrast, felt like a polished river stone in the pocket. I know which I prefer.
Sounds like Plan 9. Which would put that around 30ish years ago. Mainframe OSes can probably make similar claims even earlier.
It’s a shame she won’t live – but then again, who does?
You may want those in new high-performance infinite precision: https://github.com/timschmidt/hyperreal
Exact curves: https://github.com/timschmidt/hypercurve
Meshes: https://github.com/timschmidt/hypermesh
and more in the ~22 crate stack.
Nope. While it's technically possible via natural gas fuel cells which are near 100% efficient in combined cycle electric / heat recovery use as compared to our city's existing ~35% efficient combined cycle natural gas fired steam turbine. And one such installation was proposed for this city in the 24MW range. Our beloved local citizens believed it, without reason and in open opposition to openly shared information to the contrary, to be a water guzzling/polluting, pollutant belching, energy consuming, mass surveillance enabling dystopian thing.
Flushed $120M in local investment down the toilet and signed up for worse air quality from ageing inefficient infrastructure because a datacenter is a big faceless thing that's safe to hate.
Comfortable with your own loose wording, but lawyering over others. I see.
> And no, the payload continues to fall and is now not even remotely close to being able to achieve the program goals
Payload was also much lower on early Falcon 9's. Virtually every rocket family is a family and not one model because they get stretched, engines get added and tweaked, etc. Reduced payload capacity is a boring, normal, and expected situation for early production design. Same goes for planes. What you see as failure is an initial qualified engineering milestone. It seems to me that you must understand the concept of iteration. It also seems like you think 50T to LEO is not incredible in and of itself.
Perhaps you are the sort of person who is unhappy at weddings?
This mindset that because something which is under development is not finished yet, it has failed or is failing, can only come from someone who has never made anything themselves. The misunderstanding is so complete. I suppose it's a mindset some folks have to unlearn to help themselves.
> "Starship is a successful program because Starlink makes it economically sustainable" to "I don't care or know what Starship is trying to do, I don't care or know how successfully they're doing it, but rocket go up is a fun ride already."
These are your constructions and do not accurately reflect anything I've said. It seems like you're just looking for arguments and not genuine understanding. I won't give you any more argument. Good evening.
Rockets don't have goals. People do. Rockets have features like payload capacity, thrust, cost/ton to orbit, reusability, etc. On which Starship seems to be doing excellently compared to... everyone else.
> SpaceX investors are not investing in a marginally more efficient Starlink deployment system.
IDK what any given investor's rationale is without asking them, and neither do you. Groups, like rockets, are not possessed of singular will.
> You seem to be suggesting that it's a foregone conclusion that ... Starship will achieve its much grander ambitions.
You seem to be the only one who's said such a thing. However, since you bring it up, I will point out that engineering is a process, akin to science, and success merely takes enough determination and resources to keep trying. SpaceX seem to repeatedly demonstrate the determination, and successfully launching Starlink with Starship provides the resources.
I see what they've achieved already, and expect them to continue applying the same process. I'm not sure how far they'll go. But it's a fun ride already. I trust the process. I'm a fan of the process. You and I get to have this conversation because science and engineering work, rockets fly because science and engineering work. I'm not sure how one would even attempt to argue otherwise.
Milestones. Engineers deal in milestones. Goalposts are for sportsball.
They'll ramp falcon flights down quickly. Ramp up Starship launches just as quickly. And in a couple years time we'll have a blooper reel like this one but larger by 10x: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ
Edit: Starlink deployed.