Linux application development 2nd edition

…which ironically makes for a perfect parallel with “C/C++”

yeah, someone butchered an article and now it’s getting echoed like a broken telephone. Really it seems that qualcomm wants to buy intel’s “PC design department”, not the whole company (and even that seems very uncertain)

bonus points if you’re using a statically typed language but the library uses extensive metaprogramming seemingly for the sole purpose of hiding what types you actually need

I think the problems there are exacerbated a lot by over-eager type coercion and other crappy design decisions inherited from almost 30 years ago

but sometimes “👍🏽”.reverse() == “🏽👍”

the thing where it actually helps is if you’re “one word speed reading” (eg. http://onewordreader.com/). Then it’s easier to rapidly focus your eyes on each word, without having to follow a rigid timer. But if you’re reading normally it probably doesn’t help

A key part of visual design is knowing that the users don’t know what’s best for themselves. They usually stop complaining after 3 months which is proof that you are correct and they are wrong!

(sarcasm rate: 1 - ε)

many words should run into the same issue, since LLMs generally use less tokens per word than there are letters in the word. So they don’t have direct access to the letters composing the word, and have to go off indirect associations between “strawberry” and the letter “R”

duckassist seems to get most right but it claimed “ouroboros” contains 3 o’s and “phrasebook” contains one c.

are you sure there isn’t small print somewhere saying you forfeit your eternal soul to larry ellison?

The same comment touches on several topics, replying to 2 different people. These two statements being in the same comment is not evidence of them being about the same thing, and if the author expected readers to get that from it, it is absolutely the author’s fault if their words got misinterpreted.

And in the next paragraph:

We importantly chose not to call anyone out by name in the there because our expectations aren’t about one person. All of us need to be aware of what is and isn’t okay and a lot of people were involved in the problematic threads, even if Tim, as self-identified here, was one big part

Again referring to multiple people.

It’s clearly referring to people in the plural. If the person on the council most vocally defending the council’s decision to suspend can’t say it in a reasonably straightforward manner, the simpler explanation is that that is not what they are talking about.

If you read it carefully, Smith doesn’t make any claim that anyone complained about Peter’s conduct. It’s speaking in general terms about the behavior of unnamed persons.

“Troglodyte reprobates” was a term that Tim seemed to bring up himself from what seems to be pretty much out of the blue, so it’s a bit questionable

half of them just from the description are very obvious “we couldn’t get enough examples of bad behavior on him so we had a brainstorming session of imaginary slights”

is-number is a one-line function. (though it’s debatable if a function that complex should be compressed to one line)

You may have heard of a similar if more extreme “microdependency” called is-even. When you use an NPM package, you also need all the dependencies of that package, and the dependencies of those dependencies recursively. Each package has some overhead, eventually leading to this moment in time.

I tried to edit the ‘highlights’ into a single image, the top is the description of the PR, the middle is a comment replying to another comment

https://github.com/micromatch/to-regex-range/pull/17

the direct chain I can see is

“can you string words to form a valid RSA key”

“I would hope so, [xkcd about password strength]”

“words are the least secure way to generate random bytes”

“Good luck remembering random bytes. That infographic is about memorable passwords.”

“You memorize your RSA keys?”

so between comments 2 and 3 and 4 I’d say it soundly went past the handcrafted RSA key stuff.

I think this specific chain of replies is talking about that actually… though it is a pretty big tangent from the original post

if you know there are exactly two additional characters

this is pretty much irrelevant, as the amount of passwords with n+1 random characters is going to be exponentially higher than ones with n random characters. Any decent password cracker is going to try the 30x smaller set before doing the bigger set

and you know they are at the end of the string

that knowledge is worth like 2 bits at most, unless the characters are in the middle of a word which is probably even harder to remember

if you know there are exactly two additional characters and you know they are at the end of the string, the first number is really slightly bigger (like 11 times)

even if you assume the random characters are chosen from a large set, say 256 characters, you’d still get the 4-word one as over 50 times more. Far more likely is that it’s a regular human following one of those “you must have x numbers and y special characters” rules which would reduce it to something like 1234567890!?<^>@$%&±() which is going to be less than 30 characters

and even if they end up roughly equal in quessing difficulty, it is still far easier to remember the 4 random words